Sticks and Stones: Europeans Debate, Defend and ‘Dismantle’ Free Speech 

When US Vice President J.D. Vance said Europe was trampling on fundamental freedoms such as free speech, he set off a firestorm across the continent.  

“What I worry about is the threat from within – the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values,” he said at the Munich Security Conference in Germany in February. 

Then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany was clearly irritated by the comments. “We should be very clear that free speech in Europe means that you are not attacking others in ways that are against (the) laws we have in our country,” he said. 

Still, with those comments, Vance set off a fierce debate that is lingering months later, one that pits free-speech absolutists against those who argue that some speech restrictions are necessary to avoid infringing on the freedom of others to live in a safe, peaceful, and civilized society.  

Currently, speech restrictions are not uniform across the European Union. In Germany, one can be taken to court if one insults someone but that isn’t true in Denmark. Meanwhile, it’s illegal to deny the Holocaust in many countries on the continent but not in all.  

The libertarian Cato Institute says that, regardless, European restrictions go too far, even as the think tank also takes aim at the current and prior US administrations for attempting to restrict speech it doesn’t like.  

“Vance rightly criticized the European approach to free expression,” it wrote, providing examples of the United Kingdom jailing its citizens for praying near an abortion center or Sweden’s new blasphemy laws targeting those who burn the Muslim holy book, the Quran, at protests. “…The impulse to censor is universal and must be resisted universally.”  

Writing in World Politics Review, Nathalie Tocci, director of the Rome-based Istituto Affari Internazionali, however, dismissed the idea that speech restrictions in Europe are a threat or go too far.  

Still, observers say that numerous examples of speech restrictions in Europe show how neither side is 100 percent wrong. 

British magazine the Economist recently blasted the UK’s actions cracking down on speech, highlighting an incident in which six police officers detained a man and his partner for “disparaging emails and WhatsApp messages about their daughter’s primary school.”  

“Speech is being restricted, particularly online, in alarming ways and at an increasingly alarming rate,” it said, adding that the number of arrests is now more than a thousand a month for online posts. “The root cause can be found in the country’s speech laws, which are a mess and ill-suited to the digital age: Brits are prosecuted for the sorts of conversations they would have had in the pub. And things are set to get worse.” 

Still, one favorite target of the current US administration is the European Digital Services Act (DSA), a bloc-wide law that imposes strict oversight on online speech and, unlike the US, attempts to hold Big Tech responsible for its violations: For example, social media platforms must systematically identify, assess, and mitigate content risks, from hate speech to disinformation and election interference – or face massive fines. 

One example of a platform under investigation under its rules is TikTok: It is being scrutinized for aiding interference in Romania’s presidential election last year, allegations that led the country to annul its election and hold a new one.  

Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Chair, Brendan Carr, has promised to fight the Europeans over their attempt to “censor” Facebook, Google, and other US tech platforms, wrote Politico. Recently, he wrote to Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, X, and others asking them for details on how they are “reconciling the DSA with America’s free speech tradition,” and what role they see that “EU government officials will play in encouraging you to silence speech and demand that you censor information.” 

Europeans, however, say the DSA protects free speech.  

“Does the DSA censor? No,” said the Center for European Policy Analysis, echoing EU officials who say “lawful” content would not be removed. “The DSA tackles illegal or demonstrably harmful activity – terrorist propaganda, child sexual abuse material, and foreign-backed election meddling. These obligations (bear) no relation to China’s Great Firewall or Russia’s platform bans.” 

Meanwhile, Europeans continue to debate and legislate on speech.  

In Germany, the new coalition government under conservative Chancellor Friedrich Merz is planning new rules that would criminalize “the deliberate dissemination of false factual claims,” with a new agency to oversee the new rules, the Wall Street Journal wrote in an op-ed, adding that even conservatives from Merz’ party are ridiculing the measure. 

“This initiative has already earned a nickname in Germany,” it added, “The ‘lying ban.’”