Thierry Breton is the European Union’s commissioner for internal market. His responsibilities include overseeing the government’s policies relating to online speech. In effect, this makes him the European Commission’s would-be censor in chief—and he is eager to wield his power against unruly dissenters.
Case in point: On Monday, Elon Musk interviewed former President Donald Trump live on X, the social media site previously known as Twitter. Millions of people listened to at least part of that conversation, which covered a range of newsworthy topics: everything from the recent attempt on Trump’s life to his support for the mass deportation of illegal immigrants.
The interview clearly irked Breton, who had previously warned Musk about creating a “risk of amplification of potentially harmful content.” His open letter to Musk teemed with bureaucratic doublespeak: He began by recognizing the platform’s right to participate in free expression and then immediately voided this protection by threatening sanction against so-called hate speech and misinformation.
Want more on free speech, social media, and why everyone in the media is wrong everywhere all the time? Sign up for Free Media from Reason and Robby Soave.
“[Complying with E.U. law] means ensuring, on the one hand, that freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, are effectively protected and, on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content,” he wrote. “This is important against the background of recent examples of public unrest brought about by the amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation.”
Breton’s threats are not idle. The European Commission is currently investigating X for allegedly violating Europe’s Digital Services Act. The main basis for this investigation is that Breton does not approve of X’s new user-verification policy. Under the old Twitter rules, the site would take it upon itself to verify sufficiently important people. Musk found this practice elitist and instead permitted all users to purchase verification. For some reason, Breton believes that verification should function in whatever way he thinks is best.
By personally threatening Musk with further reprisals for allowing “hatred” and “disinformation” in the context of the Trump interview, Breton has upped the ante considerably. Trump is, after all, a candidate for the U.S. presidency—and there is significant public interest in letting people listen to what he has to say, even if some European bureaucrat is perturbed by it.
“The recent letter shows the latest example of the ‘Brussels effect’ and why Americans should be concerned about the impact of European regulation on both American companies and American users,” says Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “It is a direct example of European regulation and regulators attempting to impact the availability of certain content or method in which that content is displayed beyond their borders.”
In fact, the E.U. seems to think that Breton overstepped. In a statement, the organization noted that its president had not approved Breton’s actions, and several anonymous officials complained to the media about him.
This is probably a good time to mention that Breton’s position is effectively an unelected one. E.U. commissioners are not chosen by the people—they are selected via a secretive backroom dealing involving the European Council and the incoming E.U. president; the European Parliament has to approve or reject the entire slate of commissioners. It’s slightly more transparent than the process of picking the pope.
Should unelected European bureaucrats meddle in political dialogue and work to prevent American presidential candidates from speaking their minds? The question answers itself.
As Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) correctly noted in a post on X: “In America, we value free speech, including conversations like the one [Elon Musk] is having tonight with ideas and opinions people may dislike or even find offensive. We don’t censor. Ironic, this used to be a European idea advocated by someone named John Stuart Mill.”
Thankfully, the U.S. political system includes much stronger protections for free speech than our European counterparts. But that doesn’t mean political dialogue is completely safe. On the contrary, Democratic activists are currently attempting to weaponize campaign finance laws against Trump and Musk to punish them for daring to speak.
End Citizens United, a Democratic political action committee (PAC), filed a formal complaint about the Musk-Trump interview with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The PAC wants the FEC to regard the interview as an illegal campaign contribution from X, the corporate entity, to Trump.
“The Donald Trump-Elon Musk campaign rally hosted on X wasn’t just an incoherent diatribe of lies marred by technical difficulties it was a blatantly illegal corporate contribution to Donald Trump’s campaign,” said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United, in a statement. “This brazen corporate contribution undermines campaign finance laws and would set a dangerous precedent for unfettered, direct corporate engagement in campaigns.”
It’s true that corporations cannot directly give money to federal candidates. (They have to give money to PACs, which can then engage in campaigning on behalf of the candidates.) But the Musk-Trump interview is clearly not a campaign contribution, as defined by federal election law.
If it were, then every private media organization would be equally guilty of breaking the law when they interview candidates—something they do all the time. Political candidates frequently make appearances on various media platforms such as TV, radio, and podcasts. They are interviewed by web and print publications, which are not considered campaign contributions. Treating these interactions as such would clearly violate the First Amendment.
According to Will Duffield, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, concerns can also arise regarding television interviews, roundtables, and forums. Duffield believes that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) should refrain from regulating the content of newsrooms.
Duffield highlights the fact that individuals can file complaints with the FEC, but there is no indication that the agency will take action in this regard. This reflects a troubling trend in progressive circles where there is a growing hostility towards unrestricted speech.
Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, warns that censorship can transcend national boundaries. Courts in countries like Australia and India have issued rulings that impact online content globally. This regulatory pressure can compel platforms to enforce stricter content moderation policies, thereby limiting internet freedom.
The article also touches on various topics such as attempts to censor discussions involving Elon Musk and Donald Trump, CNN’s interview with J.D. Vance, Vice President Kamala Harris’s avoidance of the media, and the Transportation Security Administration’s impact on Tulsi Gabbard.
Furthermore, the author participated in a roundtable discussion on the science fiction podcast “Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy” about Robert Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land.” The review of the book was somewhat critical, particularly towards the second half. Fans of the book are advised that the review may not align with their perspectives.
Source link
