We have previously discussed Thierry Breton, the European Union commissioner who has been an unabashed leader of the anti-free speech movement in Europe. Breton has threatened Elon Musk and others over the lack of censorship, including allowing candidates like former president Donald Trump to speak freely on his platform. For free speech advocates, Breton’s sudden and unexpected demise was reminiscent of the scene in the Wizard of Oz. Despite pledging to get Musk and his little platform too, Breton seemed to melt away faster than Margaret Hamilton after being hit with a bucket of water.
Call it Bretxit. The resignation of Breton came after reported tensions in the European Union and specifically with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Breton lashed out at von der Leyen and all of the EU munchkins. “You asked France to withdraw my name – for personal reasons that in no instance you have discussed directly with me – and offered, as a political trade-off, an allegedly more influential portfolio for France in the future College.”
According to Deadline, his unilateral action against Musk may have been the final straw for Breton who fulfilled the worst image of an imperial, arrogant EU bureaucrat.
The departure of such an vehemently anti-free speech figure is obviously welcomed by many in the free speech community. However, we should not have any delusions. The EU remains committed to an anti-free speech agenda and using the Digital Services Act to force greater censorship around the world.
Ursula von der Leyen is no free speech advocate. Many of our own anti-free speech figures have found a willing partner in the EU.
Notably, after Musk purchased Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European officials to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). Recently, Democratic leaders like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison praised Brazil for its action to prevent citizens from having access to unfettered news sources.
Bretxit will not end or even slow this movement. Breton’s public chest pounding was an embarrassment for the EU, but not because they disagreed with his censorship agenda. They simply disagreed with his drawing so much attention to their censorship efforts.
As for Musk’s defiance, Breton seemed surprised by his melting away and could almost be heard to say “You cursed brat! Look what you’ve done! I’m melting! Melting! Oh, what a world, what a world! Who would have thought a good little [CEO] like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!”
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).
#### The EU, The UK, The UN, and NATO, Americans Run America. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/the-eu-the-uk-the-un-and-nato-americans
The Red Team hammers the Blue Team for censorship while they applaud or stay silent at the efforts increase to “crack down” on mostly peaceful protests they don’t like, right after the Red Team was attacked for mostly peaceful protests with excessive and absurd prison sentences the the Blue Team didn’t like. Let’s be consistent. Free speech principles are for speech YOU don’t like. Watch the threat from inside our borders and inside your own head.
WTH are you talking about. What examples do you have of the Red Team (Republicans) supporting censorship?
@ Chopper: “What examples do you have of the Red Team (Republicans) supporting censorship?”
Oh please!
The list is long but lets just ponder the most obvious example: H. RES. 894 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/894
The measure passed the Republican controlled House on December 5 in a 311-14 vote.
Its language is unequivocal stating that the House “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism” making it a hate crime to advocate against Zionism.
Not only is it Republican sponsored censorship of the worst kind — political censorship — it’s also a moronic rewriting of the dictionary! https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic
The most ardent anti-Zionists were originally and still are devout religious Jews.
* Does anyone have the police report on the Haitian car accident leaving the 11 year old child, Aiden Clarke dead? That would probably be truthful. It would have any expletives, bellishments, , flattery and the like..
Is that report free speech? A handsome Haitian fleeing violence in Haiti ran into a big yellow scoolbus in beautiful Springfield killing a poor helpless child. Is this the police report?
Define free speech
I like big yellow school buses…
Svelaz-George
What would you say about the legality/morality of Ted Cruz saying:
“Muslims in this country are an existential threat to our Democracy and way of life”
“It’s on us to recognize the threat Muslims pose.”
“Does one of us [he and Omar] have to come out alive?”
“Muslims are a genuine threat to this nation …They are literally a threat to everything America stands for”
“Omar and the Muslims represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic … and that is a threat to this country.”
And here’s what should be your favorite
“Muslims are destructive to our democracy and …They have to be eliminated”
Obviously, these were not statements made by Ted Cruz. And they weren’t about Muslims. Maybe you’d like a shot at assigning the origination? Pro tip, some of them have been repeated over and over by several democrats.
Or maybe you like Rick Wilson’s honesty better “They’re still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump.”
Good to see him gone but who will be the next censorship King or Queen?
It is appropriate to shun the illiteracy of candidate Trump. This is a common sense response to the technocracy of deceit and suppression that so many political institutions are deploying as a means of control. Couched in pretext political leaders (or perhaps more appropriately named policy advocates) like the former European Union leader Thierry Breton are content with gagging the worldwide general public such as Elon Musk from speaking. As observed by Dr. Turley “the EU remains committed to an anti-free speech agenda using the Digital Services Act to force greater censorship around the world .” In it’s progress towards concepts of autonomy following the second world war the Union has decided now to abrogate speech in favor of control. This in -itself, is antithetical behavior by way of suppression. It suppresses dialogue which presents merely as dialogue and not overt rebellion, as it learns with the rest of the world that choice of violence over dialogue is most expedient in the retention of control.
It is speech that founds the concept of autonomy. Speech is the instantiation of autonomy insofar as it presents potential candidates at issue by way of civil discourse. It’s suspension is the first added ingredient of fascistic thought. Think what I tell you to think, say what I tell you to say and do what I tell you to do or we will suspend your autonomy. They tie you to the kitchen chair, they break your throne and cut your hair. They inform you that this is a “lesson” and you would be wise to learn it. They are afraid of the spoken word as it is the very act of speech which forms judgment. Words are not to be taken lightly but they are, in the end, merely words. They can and often do incite violence but that is not the fault of language. It is the representation of thought that transfers antecedent facts into apprehensive behavior. It is the judgment of the listener that is the point of inflection in drawing up a calculus of limiting expression. In colloquial terms it’s not what happens but how you respond to it. Burning the flag is offensive to so many but suspending the right to burn the flag is perilous in that it suspends the autonomy of the burner no matter how offensive their conduct may be. We cannot forget the shrug of tolerance that is vital to the act of mere expression. If one fears merely the spoken word one concedes to the alternative and that is the violent suspension of the person. It just seems contradictory to all of the antecedent decades of preserving the autonomy of the individual.
I presented as autonomous in the above comment. Iforgot to include my name. My name is Michael Weiser.
Michael Dumber posts as nonymous and then likes his own post as Weiser.
It’s Lawn Boy, in full swing today.
Turley keeps spreading the false notion that the EU is anti-free speech. Breton was talking about Musk adhering to the EU’s rules against inciting violence which is NOT protected speech, even here. That is the one thing Turley keeps leaving out. He knows inciting, encouraging, and promoting violence are not protected speech. Recently Elon Musk posted on ‘x’ a comment about why Kamala Harris has not been targeted for assassination after Trump’s second “assassination” attempt. Why did he delete the post if it was just a joke? Likely because it violated his own policy on ‘x’.
Breton’s resignation has more to do with internal EU politics than with his row with Elon and his platform allowing incitement of violence and calling for violence against immigrants in the UK and the EU. Racists and bigots flocked to ‘x’ after Telegram shut down channels that were clearly inciting and promoting violence against immigrants in the UK and EU. They were violating EU rules and so was Musk. Professor Turley doesn’t seem to understand that just because ‘x’ operates in other countries and has users in other countries that they are subject to the same constitutional rights as those in the U.S. because ‘x’ is an American company. It doesn’t work that way. Brazil shut down ‘x’ because they refused to comply with Brazilian law. Brazil has every right to impose rules if ‘x’ wants to operate within their borders. We expect tik tok to adhere to OUR rules and we have threatened to ban the platform unless they change owners because we don’t like who is running it. Turley has no problem with that. But, hypocritically he has a problem when other countries demand platforms owned by U.S. companies adhere to their rules. It’s quite arrogant.
This is what Breton said to Musk in his letter,
“ Dear Mr Musk, I am writing to you in the context of recent events in the United Kingdom and in relation to the planned broadcast on your platform X of a live conversation between a US presidential candidate and yourself, which will also be accessible to users
in the EU. I understand that you are currently doing a stress test of the platform. In this context, I am compelled to remind you of the due diligence obligations set out in the Digital Services Act (DSA), as outlined in my previous letter. As the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users worldwide, of which one third in the EU, that has been designated as a Very Large Online Platform, you have the legal obligation to ensure X’s compliance with EU law
and in particular the DSA in the EU. This notably means ensuring, on 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 in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. 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. It also implies i) informing EU judicial and administrative authorities without undue delay on the measures taken to address their orders against content considered illegal, according to national and/ or EU law, ii) taking timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective action upon receipt of notices by users considering certain content illegal, iii) informing users concerning the measures taken upon receipt of the relevant notice, and iv) publicly reporting about content moderation
measures. In this respect, I note that the DSA obligations apply without exceptions or discrimination to the moderation of the whole user community and content of X (including yourself as a user with over 190 million followers) which is accessible to EU users and should be fulfilled in line with the risk-based approach of the DSA, which requires greater due diligence in case
of a foreseeable increase of the risk profile. As you know, formal proceedings are already ongoing against X under the DSA, notably in areas linked to the
dissemination of illegal content and the effectiveness of the measures taken to combat disinformation. As the relevant content is accessible to EU users and being amplified also in our jurisdiction, we cannot exclude potential spillovers in the EU. Therefore, 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. Let me clarify that any negative effect of illegal content on X in the EU, which could be attributed to the ineffectiveness of the way in which X applies the relevant provisions of the DSA, may be relevant in the context of the ongoing proceedings and of the overall assessment of X’s compliance with EU law. This is in line with what has already been done in the recent past, for example in relation to the repercussions and amplification of terrorist content or content that
incites violence. hate and racism in the EU. such as in the context of the recent riots in the United Kingdom.“
His biggest concern was the incitement of violence and the encouraging of violence against others. That is NOT protected speech here or there. But Turley seems to want to insinuate that it is by not mentioning it while calling the EU’s efforts to moderate speech that is clearly not protected as anti-free speech or censorship. Turley is being disingenuous and dishonest with the facts about the issue.
Svelaz
Where did you cut and paste your opinion from this morning?
Was it from Fairtest.org or Jimmy Fallon?
Will you say or shall I go looking?
“And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala”—Elon Musk
And here, Svelaz lies again. He claims Elon’s post was about “why” Kamala hasn’t been targeted.
Musk did ask “why” people are trying to kill Trump.
Svelaz has reading comprehension issues, or he once again got his opinion about the Must post from the “news” or Jimmy Fallon.
What is untrue about Elon’s statement? Nothing. Is it a call to action?? Give me a break.
Musk also implied why Harris was not being targeted as well. Musk claims it was a joke. If it was why did he delete it? He could have left it up and let everyone in on the “joke”.
Projecting your reading comprehension problems onto others doesn’t change the fact that you still have that problem.
Svelaz reads into and calls it comprehension. Bwahahahahahaha
Jimmy Fallon teach you that trick?
So now you imply that it wasn’t a joke??? (By the way…thats what an implication looks like, spastic)
LMAO you are truly an imbecile.
If it was just a joke why did he delete it? He’s a free speech absolutist. If it was really just a joke there would be no need to delete the post. Allegedly he’s not afraid of the criticism in fact he’s proud of it.
Why did he delete the post?
Did you get your opinion from Fairtest.org today, or Jimmy Fallon?
“Musk also implied why Harris was not being targeted as well”
Where? Cite it.
Dr. Turley:
That was absolutely hilarious about that “alleged idiot” at EU. Ah that was priceless. I laughed my a$$ off about your article et al thank you soooo very much. Some people seem really willing and capable to do things that to us might seem nonsensical.
Violent speech; similar to a politician stating that Trump should be put down like a rabid dog? Do we protect illegal immigrants more than republican ex-presidents? Your entire argument about protected speech just reinforces the fact that Europeans have never gotten rid of their feudal serf mindset and cannot think in terms of individual liberty as we do. To even condone what European and ex-European colonies are doing to subvert freedom and liberty is a slap in the face of every American soldier who gave his life in WWI & WWII while freeing the globe from tyranny.
Whimsicalmama, the EU learned from its past. We have not. They have freedom and liberty just as we do, but they also recognize that there is certain rhetoric and speech inciting violence and encouraging it is not protected speech. Their laws may be stricter and they have every right. If anyone wishes to do business or operate within the confines of the EU’s jurisdiction they must abide by their laws just as we expect those who wish to operate do business or operate here.
Turley has this twisted notion that other nations should be following the same principle of free speech that we enjoy. They can demand our companies or social media platforms conform to THEIR rules if we want to have the privilege of doing business with them on THEIR territories.
Strangely, ‘x’ removed and banned accounts associated with Hamas. They censored or labeled content they deemed misinformation coming from Hamas during the Gaza/Israel war. ‘X’ didn’t have any problem moderating violent rhetoric against Israelis or content promoting hateful views against Israel upon the EU AND Israel’s demands. Based on Elon’s and Turley’s positions none of that should have been moderated or censored because it’s STILL free speech, no matter how offensive or misinforming the content is/was. Turley, it seems, is perfectly fine with anti-free speech demands from the EU and Israel when they demand content from Hamas or even Palestinians who have no association with Hamas is removed or accounts suspended.
Turley is only concerned about the EU’s “anti-free speech agenda” when it is critical of Elon’s platform allowing the inciting of violence against immigrants. Because it’s wrong to censor hateful speech and speech inciting and encouraging violence. It’s an affront to freedom and liberty of those calling for violence and harm to others.
We have been trying to ban Tik Tok because it has an “unhealthy” influence on our youth and society and because the content is “polluting the minds of our youth” or that it just because it is Chinese owned. If Elon’s ‘x’ should be allowed to operate in Brazil then Tik Tok should be allowed to operate here.
Show me one single instance of anything resembling the first amendment in a European or any nation other than the U.S.
+100
Disinformation is merely speech that tyrants dislike. Tyrants always want to eliminate any views that may expose or inform others of the dangers of the tyrant’s designs.
The WEF has declared that “Disinformation” is their greatest enemy and must be eliminated. I am sure their intentions are as pure as the wind driven snow.
As pure as the driven soot.
I am rejoicing because the Declaration of Independence has not been obliterated by this “world-improver” who thought he had the right to determine what speech could be used by Americans.
A wonderful column. Perfect for Halloween. The allusions to the Wizard of OZ are excellent. It brought to mind all those wonderful scenes from the film. If only Thierry Breton remained only a puddle of water. Then we could freeze him and put him the freezer and only bring his frozen cube out at appropriate times to scare the children about what happens when free speech is threatened. Now we must complete this story and let the European Union know that we will not countenance these anti free speech actions against Americans and their Corporations. Of course that will require us to elect DJT. He is the Goblin King to all the censors of the European Union and the US. Comrade Kamala and Joe the Screamer will simply never allow free speech here or protect it elsewhere.
And then there is Hillary the Sea Hag, still lurking in her cave where Liz Chaney and Adam Kinzinger serve as her hand maidens.
Where, rpt where is Beowulf when you need him most. The World Wonders.
Breton, one down, several/many Davos type New World Order crowd is gone. EU leadership is full of Breton’s and one by one elections in various countries are throwing the Davos/Control crowd out. Macron is facing impeachment; Germany is on the verge of throwing out the leadership etc.
Disappearing off the face of the planet would be far more preferable.
Whatever drives the invader into the sea.
The most diabolical anti-free speech and anti-free press actions are being undertaken right now by the Biden WH as it moves to ban RT and pressures companies like Meta to do the same. This is a clear admission of incompetence on the part of the US government — they’re admitting that their lies just can’t break through the truth of alternative news sources. Despite having billion-dollar propaganda machines like the NYTimes, WaPo, the WSJ and FOX on their side, the US just can’t seem to get it through our thick heads that their wars, aggressions, and support for genocide are morally just. Censorship, sanctions and banning are their only alternatives.
Sure, the EU wants to eliminate free speech, but they don’t want to do it wearing hobnail boots and carrying machine guns. Shh… the EU is trying to be subtle. So, there’s no room for Thierry Breton.