Europe Falls: Censorship Regime Set In
Last updated
Last updated
In recent years, Europe has increasingly come under scrutiny for its approach to free speech, with critics arguing that the continent's legal frameworks are stifling expression and tolerating little dissent from mainstream political orthodoxy.
Europe's new speech regulation laws imposes enforceable duties on private platforms to purge "hate speech" and "disinformation"—or else. Free speech advocates warned that these laws are clumsy and dangerous tools that threaten to muzzle expression far beyond the bounds of their nominal targets. They're right, and they now have receipts.
The European Union's legislative landscape has evolved significantly to address online content, driven by fears of "hate speech" and "disinformation." The Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) in Germany, implemented in 2017, and the Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into effect across the EU in 2022, represent major milestones in this shift. These laws impose strict duties on social media platforms to regulate and remove content deemed inappropriate or illegal.
The DSA "gives way too much power to government agencies to flag and remove potentially illegal content and to uncover data about anonymous speakers," cautioned the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2022.
However, the implementation of these laws has led to troubling consequences for free speech. A recent report highlights that a vast majority of removed content on major platforms like Facebook and YouTube in countries such as France, Germany, and Sweden was actually legally permissible.
"Legal online speech made up most of the removed content from posts on Facebook and YouTube in France, Germany, and Sweden," according to the report. "Of the deleted comments examined across platforms and countries, between 87.5% and 99.7%, depending on the sample, were legally permissible. The highest proportion of legally permissible deleted comments was observed in Germany, where 99.7% and 98.9% of deleted comments were found to be legal on Facebook and YouTube, respectively."
Keep in mind that Europe isn't a First Amendment zone; speech laws are more restrictive there, and people can be punished for saying things that would barely raise eyebrows among Americans.
This phenomenon reflects a broader trend of over-censorship, driven by the fear of hefty fines and regulatory actions from EU authorities. Social media companies, facing significant penalties and even the threat of being banned from operating in Europe, often err on the side of removing content rather than risk running afoul of these regulations. This creates an environment where platforms act as de facto censors, suppressing not just harmful speech but also legal, albeit controversial, content.
The impact of these laws extends beyond the digital realm. High-profile events and discussions, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine or contentious domestic issues, have been subject to suppression. The suppression of such content suggests a broader pattern where political and social debates are being curtailed, limiting the scope of public discourse and critical engagement.
This regulatory environment stands in stark contrast to the values of open debate and free expression traditionally championed by democratic societies. The extensive reach of EU censorship laws and the heavy-handed approach to enforcement have raised concerns that Europe's commitment to free speech is waning, replaced by a more restrictive and less tolerant attitude toward divergent opinions.
The growing trend of suppressing legal speech under the guise of combating harmful content underscores a fundamental tension in modern democracies: balancing the need to protect individuals from genuine harm while preserving the right to free expression. As Europe continues to navigate this complex issue, the challenge will be to ensure that the fight against harmful content does not come at the cost of fundamental freedoms.
