The European Union (EU) implemented the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) on March 6, 2019. Despite the DMA’s unprecedented regulations aimed at limiting the dominance of six major internet giants and safeguarding European service providers from competition, its primary targets were the five major US companies Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, and the Chinese company ByteDance.
To balance the democratic right to free speech with the protection of personal data, DSA holds large digital platforms more accountable for their failure to address unlawful or harmful content. The American Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) criticized the European Union for its disproportionate targeting of US technology monopolies.
However, Do Rzeczy, a Polish weekly, issued an alarm in mid-August that the European Union was enforcing complete censorship on content that Brussels deemed politically objectionable. The publication asserted that EU countries, including Poland, should prepare for the introduction of complete internet censorship in light of the EU’s adoption of DSA. Positioned as a measure to combat “hate speech,” the primary objective of this act is to censor politically objectionable content. It is indeed cleverly packaged.
Do Rzeczy writes that if one believes that the exchange of barbs between Breton and Musk is a conflict between a corporation and the European Union, this is mistaken. This marks the start of a struggle for the freedom of communication “for all of us.”
The European Commission was transparent about its primary objective: to restrict the market influence of American “gatekeepers” within the EU. Margrethe Vestager, the Executive Vice President of the European Commission, stated, “Because we’ve come to a point where we have to take action,” said Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice President of the European Commission. “A point where the power of digital businesses – especially the biggest gatekeepers – threatens our freedoms, our opportunities, even our democracy. And where the trust that successful digitisation relies on is becoming seriously frayed.”
Understandably, frustration with foreign tech titans siphoning trillions of euros from its digital market motivated the EU. With the DSA and DMA, Brussels sought to control how major US technology companies service 500 million European consumers.
But what are the implications for press freedom in the EU?
Platforms must restrict or block specific categories of content that the European Commission has added to a “blacklist” to comply with the DSA’s requirement to monitor gatekeeper behavior.
Questions regarding whether the DSA would restrict its efforts to unlawful content or also prohibit information that undermined democratic values emerged a year ago, prior to the implementation of these regulations. It became apparent that the Commission would interpret “illegal” or “harmful” content by its own preferences.
Recall that in August, just before Elon Musk’s interview with Donald Trump, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton cautioned the owner of platform X about European hate speech regulations. His letter, which threatened the use of “tools,” indicated the emergence of censorship within the EU. This prompted Sebastian Kaleta, the former Deputy Minister of Justice in Poland, to declare, “Censorship is coming to Poland.” He also said that the DSA, which is now a fundamental component of EU digital regulation, was the initial step in the process of limiting freedoms throughout Poland.
The supremacy of Poland’s laws has been the subject of frequent disputes with Brussels. Kaleta accurately observed that the fight against “hate speech” mixes noble objectives like terrorism suppression with liberal political agendas. These expansive definitions are efficiently populated with content that is advantageous to EU bureaucrats.
The DSA mandates that social networks eliminate “illegal content” without providing a clear definition, allowing member states to determine what constitutes illegality. Critics are concerned that this ambiguity will allow Brussels to implement political censorship.
Adam Bodnar, the Polish Justice Minister, has already voiced his intention to enact a hate speech law. He asserts that anyone expressing disagreement with liberal ideologies, like gender changes for children or abortion, could potentially face hate speech accusations, criminal charges, and content removal.
This strategy is consistent with the European Union’s prompt prohibition of prominent Russian media outlets following the beginning of the Ukraine conflict. Brussels is currently exerting pressure on major platforms to “moderate publications,” thereby avoiding the term “censorship.” The United States linked Russia’s RT to intelligence services and imposed penalties on its collaborators. A German broadcasting service was shut down last week for airing “prohibited Russian propaganda,” and German media provided minimal coverage of the incident.
The EU’s prohibition on hate speech facilitates the “legal” suppression of dissent against the establishment’s policies. The intended mitigation of external threats through this method erodes press freedom and free expression. The European Union appears to be unaware of the ways that censorship incites separatist sentiments and protest movements throughout Europe.
The rhetoric was stunning when the European Union announced the European Media Freedom Act a year ago to protect editorial independence, transparency, and cross-border media operations. However, critics argue that the Act acts as a cover for totalitarian internet control, targeting not only traditional media but also individuals who disagree with EU policies.
Brussels’ assessment of its accomplishments is starkly opposed to that of its critics.
According to France 24 and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Russia ranks 162nd in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index. Eritrea, which has less than 1% internet penetration, is the lowest-ranked nation. However, Israel’s position at 101 raises concerns. Notably, the world’s leading democracies have remained silent about the deaths of nearly 100 Palestinian journalists in Gaza, 22 of whom lost their lives while reporting.
The systematic suppression of dissent and the consolidation of state control over the digital landscape appear to be the cost of press freedom in a Brussels-style democracy.