Determined to trample on the vigorous marketplace of ideas that defines American society , various European governments have declared war on the First Amendment . They are supported by senior police officers, prosecutors, public figures, and even journalists.
The centerpiece of this effort seeks to force X to censor political speech European bureaucrats deem undesirable. This follows recent riots in the United Kingdom and the posting of hateful commentary on X. In response to these posts, English prosecutors have won convictions against a number of individuals. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has strongly supported these prosecutions. To be clear, the X posts leading to these convictions would not meet U.S. standards for criminality in the absence of a proven intent for likely and imminent unlawful activity.
That cuts to the heart of this concern. It's one thing to arrest Britons for X posts made while in Britain that breach English law. It's another thing altogether to target Americans with the same dragnet. And that's exactly what's happening here.
Take the recent comments by the head of London's Metropolitan Police service, responsible for leading national security-related policing across the U.K. Sir Mark Rowley has threatened to arrest individuals outside the U.K. for X posts he deems unacceptable. Responding to a media question as to whether "the likes of Elon Musk" could face arrest, Rowley responded that "being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law ... and whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you."
This rhetoric can only be seen as a threat to arrest U.S. citizens for speech made in the United States that is lawful in the U.S. In turn, Rowley's words plainly constitute an unacceptable threat to the civil liberty of Americans. A threat, then, of the same kind that provoked America's very emergence in the first place. The threat alone may chill the willingness of Americans to speak freely in their own country. Still, the U.S. could very easily neuter Rowley's ambitions by warning that any such arrest would result in a restriction of U.S.-U.K. cooperation in the intelligence and security fields.
Yet Rowley is hardly the only rising agitator against the First Amendment. Just across the English Channel, another powerful figure is calling for action against Americans.
Thierry Breton is the European Union commissioner for the internal market. When helping wage the EU's protectionist extortion campaign against American technology companies, Breton encapsulates the casual anti-Americanism that so enlivens the French elites.
On Monday, Breton rather laboriously warned that Musk must ensure "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." Breton added that EU legal "obligations apply without exceptions or discrimination to the moderation of the whole user community and content of X which is accessible to EU users."
Breton's reference to "live streaming" was clearly focused on Musk's X interview with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday. In that regard, note Breton's utterly unrestrained derision for the American political process. And the EU commissioner's insistence that Musk and X conform to EU legal standards even in advance of a live interview is equally telling. In effect, Breton was warning Musk to temper his dialogue with Trump to conform with EU standards. Put simply, two Americans speaking on U.S. soil about U.S. political issues in advance of a U.S. presidential election were told by an EU politician to be careful what they said before they said it.
To say that this foreign campaign for the coercive censorship of Americans is unacceptable is tantamount to saying only that it was unfortunate that Russia held the journalist Evan Gershkovich hostage for nearly 18 months. This is not complicated. At least nominally close foreign allies are threatening to arrest Americans for lawful speech made on American soil. If the EU and U.K. want to restrict domestic access to X for content that they view as unacceptable, that is their prerogative. But if American CEOs such as Musk want to adopt their own standards on their own platforms, that is also their prerogative. If the EU and U.K. are still determined to have their way, they can ban X.
Of course, the censors know that such a drastic course of action might not meet such a warm reception from the many X users in their countries. To do so might risk reinforcing the very real sense of populist dissection from political elites. That this populist sentiment is already oscillating into extremism is undeniable. It was proven in the recent U.K. riots, the triumph of the far-right in Germany, and the near triumph of the French far-right in the EU elections in June.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Regardless, the U.S. government and Americans more generally must stand firm in defense of our most sacred principle: the individual freedom to speak freely on matters of public import.
If foreign officials wish to challenge that right, they should find themselves facing immediate and decisive consequences.
Most Popular
Comments / 0