As I argued in October of 2022, Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now X) would represent an important test case for the freedom of speech on social media against the globalist, woke, and totalitarian agenda for the censorship of “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation.” In that essay, I also predicted that one of the main obstacles for free speech on X would be the Digital Services Act (DSA) of the European Union (EU), as administered by the European Commission (EC):

But the Digital Services Act threatens to universalize content moderation by social media and search engines, subjecting them to the EU’s stringent and anti-free-speech laws against “disinformation” and “hate speech,” which are not (yet) recognized legal categories in the United States. Given that Twitter [now X] will be forced to abide by EU-enforced content moderation for its EU users, it is possible that it will simply apply the Digital Services Act’s rules to all content…

Sure enough, Musk’s X has been threatened with fines of up to 6% of global revenue by the EC’s Thierry Breton for failure to comply with the EC’s DSA. And now Breton is attempting to bring down the hammer on X for its failure to comply with DSA imperatives, especially in connection with a prospective interview of Trump and revolts underway in the UK over immigration and immigrant violence.

In an X post on August 12, 2024, Breton publicized a letter he sent to Musk and X’s CEO, Linda Yaccarino, the weakest link in X’s free-speech chain. The letter lays out the extent to which the EC aims to go and the powers that it arrogates to itself to curtail free speech:

As the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users worldwide, of which one third in the EU (sic), 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 (emphasis mine).

Thus, we see that the imperative to control speech on all “Very Large Online Platforms,” including search engines and social media sites, is globalist in character. The EC has no intention of abiding by the constitutional provisions that supposedly protect the speech of individuals or platform owners in any sovereign nation states. No matter the origin of the speech in question, the EC claims the right to regulate it.

In prose rife with the kind of doublespeak and gaslighting that we should expect from the globalists in the EC, the United Nations (UN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF), Breton continues:

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 (emphasis mine).

On the one hand, the EC’s Breton is ordering X to ensure “freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism,” and on the other, the platform must mitigate (censor) “the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events.”

Of course, the EC will decide what constitutes “harmful content,” and the harmfulness of said content will be determined based on the EU’s dicta as to what harms its own (globalist) agenda. Never mind whether the content may advocate the reduction or elimination of harm to those subjects it deems to have no right to freedom of expression, like the native Britains revolting against the UK’s immigration policies, aligned as the latter policies are with the EU’s own immigration policies. The EC will decide what speech it condones, what freedom of expression is allowed, and what expression will be disallowed. The EC will decide what are the “relevant events,” “public unrest,” and thus what speech is permissible and what is not.

Redoubling its claims to authority over speech on X, Breton reminded Musk of ongoing proceedings against the platform:

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 (emphasis mine).

This warning is given in connection to ongoing speech of which Breton and the EC/EU does not sanction, including speech exhibiting “hate and racism” and “debates and interviews in the context of elections,” the treatment of which could have, Breton warns, an impact on proceedings already underway against X:

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.

 l therefore urge you to promptly ensure the effectiveness of your systems and to report measures taken to my team (emphasis mine).

Thus, the supposed “richest man in the world” is to report on his censorship mitigation efforts regarding permissible free expression to the Breton’s EU “team.” Musk’s X is likewise vulnerable to punishment by this supra-statist regime.

The arrogance of the supra-statist, globalist, and woke regime apparently knows no bounds. As if in the U.S., national efforts to curtail and control speech were not already draconian enough, the EC/EU is upping the ante on censorship. These efforts will have dramatic effects on the future of free speech, including speech regarding pandemics, the integrity of elections, “antisemitism,” the institution of freedom-crushing “climate change” mitigation efforts, civil unrest in response to all the above, and more.