When the First Amendment was written, having a public debate meant gathering in a town hall, a public square, or some other meeting place where ideas could clash face to face. The Framers of our Constitution knew that open dialogue and robust debate are essential to a free society, so they enacted strong protections for the freedom of speech.
Times have changed. The public square, like many other things, has gone digital. The internet and social media are now the “locations” where people “meet” to discuss important topics. Though the environment for free speech has changed, its importance has not—and neither should the protections we give it.
Enter the European Digital Services Act (DSA). Don’t let its name fool you. It may sound like an innocuous, boring European law, but the DSA is a digital gag order with global consequences. If left unchecked, it can censor you no matter where you live, including in the United States.
What is the Digital Services Act?
Officially, the European Digital Services Act is a legally binding regulatory framework whose stated goal is “to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation.” But in reality, the EU Digital Services Act allows those in power to silence or censor voices they find disagreeable. It is, for all intents and purposes, one of the biggest power grabs in internet regulation history.
The Digital Services Act grants broad powers to the European Commission to regulate content it deems “harmful” across the biggest and most used online platforms. Formally enacted in November 2022, the DSA took effect in 2024 after businesses were given a 15-month “grace” period in which to comply with the new regulations.
The Digital Services Act, in short, strong-arms a variety of major online platforms (think Google, Meta, or X) to play by the rules established by the EU. The problem is that those rules aren’t exactly clear-cut and are open to all manners of interpretation.
Take, for example, the way it seeks to address “hate speech.” In theory, it sounds great to combat “hate speech,” but the EU is unable to define that phrase without recycling the term “hate.” The EU defines hate speech as the “public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.” And yet, that circular definition helps define “illegal content” (yet another nebulous term), which is technically the DSA’s primary target.
In short, the DSA is government overreach masquerading as “safety and security” for the masses.
Who is impacted by the DSA?
The penalty for violating the DSA is steep for businesses—fines up to 6 percent of their worldwide annual revenue, with potential additional daily fines up to 5 percent of that revenue. This would amount to billions of dollars for many American companies. However, the DSA is arguably much more serious for private citizens.
Just look at the active case against Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. With the support of Alliance Defending Freedom International, both Päivi and Juhana were twice found not guilty of “hate speech” for simple expression voicing the Christian worldview on marriage and sexuality.
But due to a persistent prosecutor, both Päivi and Bishop Juhana will need to face a third trial, this time before the Finnish Supreme Court. Seven years after the fact, Päivi and Juhana are officially going back to court on October 30.
And it’s all because in 2019, Päivi posted biblical Scripture online.
Päivi has been prosecuted under her country’s “War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” national law. But the reality is that under the DSA, we could see many more Päivis.
How does the DSA affect America?
“Oh, surely this EU DSA stuff has nothing to do with me in [insert city, state],” some have probably thought. “We have the First Amendment!”
While it’s very true that this country is blessed with the First Amendment, which sharply limits the United States government’s power to restrict speech, those protections do not immunize Americans from the impacts of the global overreach from the Digital Services Act.
For example, large global platforms like Google may be inclined to conform their international content moderation policies to suit EU censorship. If platforms deem something “illegal” under EU rules, that content may be banned everywhere, even in countries with strong free speech protections. As the U.S. House Judiciary Committee wrote to the European Commissioner, “[B]ecause many social media platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally, restrictive censorship laws like the DSA may set de facto global censorship standards.”
It’s not even that far-fetched to think of how you, an American, could be impacted by the DSA. For example, have you noticed how many more websites these days seem to be asking you about their cookie settings? That’s a direct result of the General Data Protection Regulation in the EU. In response, many American-run sites began changing their policies to avoid potential headaches from the GDPR. The same will likely happen with the DSA.
Here’s another scenario that might hit closer to home. Let’s say you went on Facebook (owned by Meta, which is headquartered in California) to post something as common-sense as believing that there are only two genders. Well, if someone were to report that as “hate speech,” the EU could pressure Meta—which also operates globally and thus is subject to EU regulations—to remove the post lest it face those stiff financial penalties.
And what happens if the EU is so aggrieved about the post and its “harmful” content that it not only wants the post removed, but the user profile scrubbed altogether after the user refuses to give in to their demands? Imagine your Facebook profile, having helped cultivate your personal business for years, suddenly being deleted completely because of that post about two genders.
It’s tragic, it’s troubling, and it’s all too possible.
The mere existence of the DSA will chill free speech
Given the steep financial penalties the DSA carries, companies are more likely to just preemptively comply than to fight a protracted legal battle—thus allowing the EU to effectively dictate global policy.
When unelected bureaucrats in Brussels can silence and suppress speech on a global scale, that’s a problem. It’s imperative that we push back on this regime of global censorship, especially in the United States.
One of the hallmarks of a free and flourishing society is the ability to share differing ideas and worldviews and to let people think and decide for themselves where they stand.
The best response to contested speech is more speech, not less. Not censorship.
And that’s not just an American value; it’s a universal one.
Related Articles
