Below is my column in The Hill on the move of the European Union to force Elon Musk to censor X users, including political speech leading up to the 2024 election. The column discusses this Rockwell painting, which we often use in discussing free speech controversies.
Here is the column:
Eighty years ago, the U.S. government launched a war bond campaign featuring a painting by artist Norman Rockwell in the struggle against the authoritarian threat from Europe. The picture they chose was Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech depicting a man rising to speak his mind at a local council meeting in Vermont. The image rallied the nation around what Louis Brandeis called our “indispensable right.”
Now, that very right is again under attack from another European government, which is claiming the right to censor what Americans are allowed to say about politics, science and other subjects. Indeed, the threat from the European Union may succeed in curtailing American freedom to an extent that the Axis powers could not have imagined. They may win, and our leaders have not said a thing yet about it.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the inspiration for Rockwell’s painting: a young selectman in Vermont named James “Buddy” Edgerton. The descendent of a Revolutionary War hero, Edgerton stood up as the lone dissenter to a plan to build a new schoolhouse over the lack of funding for such construction.
For Rockwell, the scene was a riveting example of how one man in this country can stand alone and be heard despite overwhelming opposition to his views. It was, for Rockwell (and for many of us), the quintessential American moment.
In the 1940s, people like Edgerton had to travel to small board meetings or public spaces to speak their mind. Today, the vast majority of political speech occurs over the Internet and specifically social media. That is why the internet is the single greatest advancement for free speech since the printing press.
It is also the reason governments have spent decades seeking to control speech over the internet, to regulate what people can say or read.
One of the greatest threats to free speech today is the European Digital Services Act. The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”
In Europe, free speech is in free fall. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and other countries have eviscerated free speech by criminalizing speech deemed inciteful or degrading to individuals or groups. The result had made little difference to the neo-Nazi movement in countries like Germany, which is reaching record numbers. It has, however, silenced the rest of society.
According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.
They have silenced the wrong people, but there is now a massive censorship bureaucracy in Europe and the desire to silence opposing voices has become insatiable.
Some in this country have the same taste for speech-regulation. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.
In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans.
The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.
It was a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The anti-free speech movement had finally found the one man who could not be bullied, coerced or threatened into submission.
Musk’s defiance has only magnified the unrelenting attacks against him in the media, academia and government. If Musk can be broken, these figures will once again exercise effective control over a large swath of speech globally.
This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the most notorious anti-free speech figures in the world went ballistic.
European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”
While offering a passing nod to the freedom of speech, he warned Musk that “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events.” In other words, be afraid, be very afraid.
Musk responded with “Bonjour!” and then suggested that Breton perform a physically challenging sexual act.
To recap, the EU is now moving to force censorship upon American citizens to meet its own demands of what is false, demeaning or inciting. And that includes censorship even of our leading political candidates for the presidency.
The response from the Biden administration was not a presidential statement warning any foreign government from seeking to limit our rights or even Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling the EU ambassador to his office for an expression of displeasure.
That’s because Biden and Harris are not displeased with but supportive of letting the EU do what they are barred from doing under our Constitution. This administration is arguably the most anti-free speech government since John Adams signed the Sedition Act. They have supported a massive system of censorship, blacklisting and targeting of opposing voices. Democratic members have given full-throated support for censorship, including pushing social media companies to expand in areas ranging from climate control to gender identity.
So, after only 80 years, our leaders are silent as a European government threatens to reduce our political speech to the lowest common denominator, which they will set according to their own values. Not a shot will be fired as Biden and Harris simply yield our rights to a global governing system.
But we do not have to go quietly into this night. Free speech remains a human right that is part of our DNA as Americans. We can fight back and protect millions of Edgertons who want to express their views regardless of the judgment of the majority.
I previously called for legislation to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business domestically. We also need new legislation to keep other countries from regulating the speech of our own citizens and companies. While this country has long threatened retaliation in combatting market barriers in other countries, we need to do the same thing for free speech. We need a federal law that opposes the intrusion of the Digital Services Act into the U.S.
If free speech is truly the “indispensable right” of all Americans, we need to treat this threat as an attack on our very existence. It is not only the rawest form of foreign intervention into an election, but a foreign attack on our very freedoms. This is why we must pass a Digital Freedom Act.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
Where is my comment?
We would not have a free nation we call The United States of America had we not defeated the British in the Revolutionary War. One phrase motivated is to win that war: Kill The Redcoats!.
I have used Norman Rockwell’s “Indispensable Right” as my avatar for years! It has served me well.
Some of the very same arguments used today to ban free speech were used in 15th-century Europe after the development of the printing press. Turley’s comparison to today’s Internet is startling. Printed materials that were considered antireligious, heretical, or against the ruling classes were routinely banned.
The Roman pontiff created the Index Libororum Prohibitorum in response to the writings of rebels like Martin Luther, a monk and fierce critic of corruption in the Church. Reading something placed on the Index could cost one his soul through excommunication. Remarkably, the Index was discontinued only in 1966 and is now considered a historical document only.
Had the Church allowed freedom of speech back then, it might have prevented the Reformation and dissolution of the “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church” – not to mention thousands of lives of good people who simply disagreed with each other and were tortured and murdered for doing so.
To see this sentiment reappear in Europe today is not only sad but a reversal of civilization itself. In the 1830s, French historian and writer De Tocqueville toured America and praised our religious communities for living in harmony next to each other, even in small villages. Religious freedom is closely tied to freedom of speech. It was then – as now – something unique, he said, that made America “exceptional.”
We must remind our European cousins that what they are offering is dangerous and manifestly wrong. They need only to look at their own history to see the evidence of this.
“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” -Winston Churchill
by way of George Santayana.
The globalists hide behind the pretense that they are protecting the most vulnerable by curbing free speech that is violent or racist. In reality, they are protecting their own power, which, the more blatant the class division becomes, the more their power is threatened. The growth of populism throughout the West scares the globalists into becoming more and more repressive. But there is a breaking point.
I’m still waiting to hear whether JT’s notion of free speech allows America’s foreign enemies to reach into the minds of our youth to indoctrinate them into hating the U.S. How about Islamist terrorists working via apps like Telegram to recruit socially-isolated young American men to become lone-wolf attackers?
I’m not saying what JT thinks, I’m asking him to clarify if national sovereignty is a meaningless concept because of the global, borderless internet? Is he ready to argue the worst aspects of professional, transnational infowarfare are protected by the First Amendment?
Many conservatives vehemently reject the idea that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights confer rights on the entire global population. Be careful — interpreting 1A as allowing foreign enemies unfettered infowarfare access to our youth
sets you up as aligned with the globalist techies who set out 30 years ago to dissolve borders.
What other country would be so “principled” as to cede its enemies that advantage? To offer up its children as fair game? I humbly ask JT to stop avoiding serious discussion of reasonable limits to the definition of 1A coverage — specifically cross-continental infowarfare preying on U.S. children.
Hi pbinka, when you get a free second…can you clarify this idea…. “Many conservatives vehemently reject the idea that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights confer rights on the entire global population. […..Be careful — interpreting 1A as allowing foreign enemies unfettered infowarfare access to our youth. It sets you up as aligned with the globalist techies who set out 30 years ago to dissolve borders.].
I am not understanding the first part about what many conservatives reject.
For the sake of discussion, may I make make a couple of points. Firstly, to me, given that the U.S. Constitution starts with “We the People of the US, in order to form a more perfect union…;” then, the geographic scope of the document is clear. The U.S. Constitution applies to the people of the U.S. Other countries may adopt any or all of the ideas in the U.S. Constitution, if they so desire. That’s fine by me, as an American….and likely fine with most Americans. It’s an attitude of.. “feel free to copy it or use it as your own.” Whether others want to use it or not, it doesn’t change the scope of the document. The U.S. Constitution was written by American’s for Americans. As a mere idea (and not a stipulation of the U.S. Constitution,) American’s seem to always want to project there ideas and values onto other countries. Freedom of speech is one of those idea/values. However, projecting an idea/value on other countries and cultures is not the same as that value being protected for non-US persons under the U.S. Constitution. It’s the difference between what American’s believe is a good idea, versus what American’s understand as their unique national and legal right. And lastly, the idea of “protected freedom of speech” as 1A provides; is not the same thing, in my eyes, as “freedom of consequences.” In other words, someone can have the right to take flying lessons; and have the right to rent a big plane…..; but they don’t have the right to ram it into a building killing thousands and more. While they have the right, to do mos things; and they have the freedom to do bad things; hey are not protected from its consequences. What I am trying to say is, American’s have enormous bandwidth in the exercise of freedom of speech, protected under their constitution; as well as the freedom to choose doing good and doing bad. The choose for themselves. But they do not have, freedom from the consequences of their speech and their actions. Those are just some thoughts that your post make me think about. So I appreciate your post. It got me thinking. I did have one point about your post that I did not clearly understand though.
Thanks for the dialog. I have grown from it.
IF on is worried:
“. Be careful — interpreting 1A as allowing foreign enemies unfettered infowarfare access to our youth”
Vote Trump.
“We must hollow out the minds of our youth. Our survival depends on it!”
STFU
Its political speak they are after.
Context matters.
Good question. Children never read the NYT or WSJ before the net.
The dems and global power mongers use sex and drugs as a lasso. Academia uses “America is bad”, white slavers is a favorite.
Bout all I’ll say…
Turley is avoiding the source of the problem. The EU instituted this law because of what happened in the UK recently. He chose to ignore the violent riots against immigrants due to disinformation and incitement on Musk’s platform including his own participation by fanning the rhetoric which led to the rioting. Turley should know better than this. Inciting violence is NOT protected speech, even in this country. Spreading rumors that harmed multiple groups and enabled violence against them is what lended Musk in trouble with the EU.
Free speech has limits. The EU has its sovereign right to enact laws making incitement and disinformation a crime because it has witnessed real harm and violence by allowing speech that is not protected speech here. The constitution does not extend all the way to Europe. Europe has free speech rights just like we do, but they also recognize that free speech is not absolute and does and can do harm. Germans don’t express themselves as freely as we do because they know how to keep to themselves opinions they only share with close friends and family. They are not like us and it’s false equivalence to compare their views on free speech against ours.
Turley’s blog has limits on free speech. He censors openly racist comments, that’s far worse than incitement? Would his blog allow incitement of violence and disinformation about Turley to be constantly posted on the blog? I highly doubt it.
The reason Elon is being warned is because he joined in on the incitement of the riots in teh UK. He was egging them on while real people were being hurt and targeted for violence because someone was maliciously spreading disinformation and false rumor about immigrants when in fact the real person that started the whole thing was a UK born citizen. It was the spreading of the rumors and calls to incite violence against immigrants on “X” that enabled the rioting. Inciting violence is not protected speech. Turley knows that, but he seems more interested in plugging his book and defending the incitement of violence.
Wrong!
Inciting violence is not protected speech.
Please give an example of what constitutes “inciting violence”.
Inciting violence occurred yeaterday in Washington DC. A group of Black employees of Sugar Shack at DuPont Circle in Washington DC bludgeon a gay white guy separated by from his partner. It was like 5 blacks on one gay guy, hooting and hollering like feral dogs, not that the MSM is covering it as such. But the video shows the violence.
Democrats say they represent blacks so it follows this is on Dems. Wait for the Act Blue DNC paid trolls to explain the scenario with “reasons” and whataboutisms
Watch the video:
Attack outside Dupont Circle Shake Shack investigated as suspected hate crime
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/man-recovering-after-alleged-attack-outside-dupont-circle-shake-shack/3696864/
Did speech incite them to this violence? Also, how is this a “hate” crime? Looks like just a crime to me since most crime is hateful.
Yes, it did. Ironically I just tried to post an example of what was said and my comment was immediately sent to moderation.
If it’s not allowed to be posted here it certainly violates the rules in the EU which is why Elon Musk being called out.
So someone said, “go beat the crap out of this guy” and then they did it?
Saying, “go beat the crap out of this guy” is not protected speech. What happened in the UK was much worse. Rioters and racists were calling for the burning or buildings while immigrants were still in them on Elon’s platform. They were sharing info on how to make Molotov cocktails. That kind of speech is not protected here and its’ not protected in the UK or EU.
ANTIFA BLM Rioters and racists were calling for the burning or buildings while
immigrantspolice were still in them onElon’sDemocrats platformIs it too much to ask that you grow a brain, a spine and/or some τεsτιcles and THINK before you copy/pasta?
Your handlers are not sending their best
As determined by whom?
Your premise is wrong:
The Digital Services Act has nothing to do directly with the riots in the UK, but was already there – as were the state attempts to regulate free speech in such a way that certain criticisms (e.g. of transgender and gender ideology, of uncontrolled migration, of Islam, etc.) are criminalized.
A regular reader of this blog and guy from Germany
I’ve posted a link which is not disinformation. Find it!
“The EU instituted this law because of what happened in the UK recently.”
That would be a neat trick, since the DSA was passed in *2022*.
Daily, you shred your credibility. For what? To deceive and to apologize for Leftist tyranny.
That is called selling your soul.
Sam, I meant the EU passed the law for things like those that happened in the UK. Apologies for the confusion. The point still is they have that law because of the inciting language and those who actively push for it on other platforms in the EU. X did not moderate those calls violence.
YOu have a habit, when called out, of retrospectively saying “what I really meant was….,” hoping no one will catch your slithering infiltration into the real facts.
“Turley’s blog has limits on free speech.”
Once again, George has no idea what free speech is. He demonstrates it with every ignorant post he makes.
Turley cant possibly be limiting free speech. “Free speech” is a right enshrined in the First Amendment.
That right is the freedom from government interference in an individuals expression.
Congress shall make no law….
Turley is not Congress. Its hilarious that this 3rd grade civics lesson has to be repeated for you over and over.
Now if Turley were an agent in some FBI cubicle, and was acting on his own to pressure Darren to take down your idiotic posts, THAT might be limiting “free speech”.
But you are somehow OK with that and claim it is “the government” exercising its “free speech rights”.
Hilarious.
Turley’s blog does limit free speech. It does not allow for openly racist comments or direct foul language. Free speech is not absolute and yes the government does have a right to free speech.
You are still the one having trouble understanding nuance and complexity when it comes to free speech. Reading comprehension does have that effect.
Turleys blog cannot limit free speech because limiting the content of posts here has NOTHING TO DO with free speech, because Turley is not the government.
You are the idiot having trouble with the obvious, let alone “nuance”.
What is “free speech”, nincompoop?
You said yourself that their is no “right to free speech at work”. Why is that? Because free speech and employees rights have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.
Free speech and your comments on this blog have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to to do with each other, unless and until the government gets involved.
Sorry that reality gets in your way once again. So inconvenient, I know.
FREE speech is your right to be FREE from government abridging that right. Period. Its not nuanced or complex.
Everything else is just speech. Simple.
Mr. Musk and president Trump were simply speaking freely. Some of it was just speaking. No doubt there were some grievances expressed and what president Trump would do to remedy those grievances. I like that.
Thanks
Oh and the fbi dweeb in the cubicle, acting on his own, is not the government.
The EU/Globalist doing the bidding of the Left Wing DEM’s/Democrat Party, Biden/Harris. They can’t do it in the US so the DEM’s/Globalist are asking the EU to do their dirty work. The Constitution is in the DEM’s/Biden/Harris way. They are afraid of Free Speech, and they are afraid of Trump, for Trump will spoil their Globalist/Davos crowd plans.
“The Constitution is in the DEM’s/Biden/Harris way.”
If enough people vote for them in November, you will probably have the “privilege” of witnessing them overcome that impediment in a hurry.
248 years ago the founders redefined and set a new vision for the purpose of any government. It is all about securing our natural rights equally for all. By the time a war was fought and an extremely limited government was attempted, that generation ratified a constitution and bill of rights as the limits of our government’s mission that would lead to that vision. After 236 years, we don’t need to redefine the vision. We need to reset the original limits.
“After 236 years, we don’t need to redefine the vision. We need to reset the original limits.”
Exactly. In the form of the First Amendment, the government is expressly and explicitly forbidden from any involvement in the “censorship business”. If we need additional legislation to prevent that involvement, it is already a lost cause.
“I previously called for legislation to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business domestically. “
I thought the first amendment gave us what you’re asking for, the question is why are Americans now afraid to exercise that right. Someone should take Rockwells painting and replace Edgertons face with Elons face.
Of course you are aware, Professor, that you have just incited “violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections”.
Welcome to the group…
J
Oh no! Not again! how many hundreds of years has Europe declared war on free speefh? OMG! Well, this is terrible.
Well this administration will give no support to Musk. They would rather eviscerate X and the only truly effective space faring company in the US in order to get Musk.
I think the Only way to respond, since the Federal Government will not take up this, is to take up the case in Federal Court in Texas or possibly the Southeast and force the issue by demanding seizure of EU assets for damages. They may have to do the same thing in Brazil since X had to remove it’s people there and close X”s office in Brazil in order to protect their people from arrest. Lula’s government has never been much of a free speech supporter.
Of course there is Musk’s satellite system and he may be able to circumvent the government in these spaces by using his own Starlink.
Amazing, even to me, who has never been a supporter of EU oppression, that the people of the EU are so quiet about this.
Of course there is the possibility that a consortium of Red State AG’s might be able to force the issue. They might be able to force this administration to enforce some foreign policy muscle but I won’t hold my breath.
“They would rather eviscerate X and the only truly effective space faring company in the US in order to get Musk.”
What will be really interesting (although possibly tragic) is whether those running the current regime are depraved enough to allow two US astronauts to perish on the International Space Station to avoid Musk getting the credit for a rescue by a SpaceX rocket. Boeing put them up there, but months after they were originally scheduled to be brought back, Boeing’s sheer incompetence has resulted in nothing but a seemingly endless series of failures of their recovery vehicle. Apparently the only thing Boeing can correctly produce are massive, lethal, civilian anti-personnel bombs. There has been much talk about NASA formally requesting SpaceX to retrieve the stranded spacefarers, but I strongly suspect that this administration would place a far higher value on the loss of face for them, than on the loss of life for our astronauts.
“…that the people of the EU are so quiet about this (is amazing).” Geb, it’s because they’re still taught that Rights are given and granted by government. If government says ‘no free speech for you’, they don’t question it. For them to demand their speech be recognized as an inalienable human right is as foreign a concept as ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ is. They’ve been taught to be subjects, not free human beings.
what is “incitement” you mean when the people want their country protected from illegals? When they want the legal freedoms? When they want the LAW to be upheld? When they demand the ARREST of criminal government operators?
the PROBLEM is TOO MUCH CENTRALIZE POWER
so decentralize….cut central government 50%. In the USA end all federal aid to cities, states, non-profits and colleges
Move 75% of centralized operations left…out across the country!
It is OBVIOUS people like Soros, China, etc are backing people WHO HATE THEIR OWN Country and the WEST!
Now or Never!
Oh and set up a Nuremberg like trial to jail the 1000’s of Fascists from across government for their crimes!
These people are NO different than the fascists of Europe in the 1930’s!
They are different. They are worse than the fascists in Europe in the 1930s. They have the superpower of cyberspace to spy and censor. Don’t count on the current regime in the WH or the one already showing us what communist she is to protect any of our constitutional rights. They hate Trump and the threat he is to their grip on power more than they love our country. We’re heading down the toilet fast. Even if Trump wins, the die has been cast. The socialists are entrenched in our Federal government. You can change who sits atop the pile, but those who control day-to-day activities remain.
“They hate Trump and the threat he is to their grip on power more than they love our country.”
“They” don’t live our country. Never did. What they love is the endless grift.
At least trump has fake fans.
https://petapixel.com/2024/08/19/donald-trump-shares-ai-images-of-taylor-swift-fans-wearing-swifties-for-trump-shirts/
😂 fabulous. Great artistic use of fake media. The idols created…Andy Warhol and Campbell’s soup.
“love our country”
They hate Trump’s supporters more than than they hate Trump himself. They don’t even try to hide it anymore, Mr. Danneskjold.
Someone understood the screen name. Good work 🙂 However, I disagree with your conclusion. The comment from Mary that I was addressing was about those currently in power. While the general rank and file of leftists/Dems/progressives/woke hate both Trump and his supporters (I wouldn’t doubt that they could hate his supporters more), I think that the main grifters-in-power (GIP?) are pragmatic enough not to hate anyone. Hate would be a genuine emotion of which many of them may not be capable. They seek only to retain their unmerited power, and to continue to accumulate their unearned gains. They have no ethical or moral principles that would impose any limits on what they would be willing to do to accomplish that.
Barry Edgerton was the Barry Goldwater of his day.
There are multiple reasona why many of our forebears left Europe. This is a stark reminder.
Thank you, Professor, for your vigilance.
This is why we absolutely MUST defeat the current administration!
Completely agree that the current administration is OK with it. I would actually be surprised if they were not in on it. They’ve shown no hesitation to squelch free speech.
The EU should be prosecuted for Election Interference. Our government won’t do it. Hence we need civil remedies to sue for damages
“ This is why we must pass a Digital Freedom Act.”
______________________________________________________________
HEAR HEAR MR TURLEY!! HEAR HEAR!! (I, Could not agree more with you, Jonathan Turley!! Bravo! Bravo!!
* lawsuits as censoring devices. It’s about principles. Principles have the ability to create a conscience.
The Constitution is an inspired document. There are behaviors in man that are so odious even the demons blush.