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.
Those protections were ahead of their time. 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 Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Don’t let its name fool you. It may sound like an innocuous 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 EU’s Digital Services Act is a regulatory scheme with the stated goal “to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation.” But in reality, the Digital Services Act allows those in power to silence or censor voices they find disagreeable. It is, for all intents and purposes, the biggest power grab in internet regulation history.
The Digital Services Act grants broad powers to European Commissioners to regulate content they deem “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. But make no mistake, there is little “grace” in the DSA, especially given the arbitrary nature of the definitions and enforcement approaches attached to it. Those definitions and enforcement rules are basically at the whim of European Commissioners.
The Digital Services Act, in short, strong-arms a variety of major online platforms (think Google, Meta, or X) to enforce the sensibilities of EU Commissioners. Yet, despite the DSA’s voluminous (and increasing) word count, its lack of clear definition for key terms like “misinformation” and “hate speech”—combined with crippling fines for social media companies who fail to comply with EU Commissioners’ demands—means that tech giants must adopt a “censor first; ask questions later” mentality.
Take, for example, the way it seeks to address “hate speech.” In theory, it may sound great to combat “hate,” 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 that circular definition helps define “illegal content” (yet another easily weaponizable term), which is 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 the online platforms it seeks to control—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. Just look at what’s happening to the social media platform X.
In December 2025, the European Commission levied a $140 million fine on X, citing various violations of the DSA. While the official claims involved a “deceptive” checkmark verification system and a “lack of transparency” when it comes to X’s ad data, the real reason Elon Musk and X are being targeted is because they refuse to become a censorship apparatus of the European Commission. Elon and X have committed to a maximalist approach to free speech—and that doesn’t fly under the DSA.
Because of these blatant attacks on free speech rights, ADF attorneys in the U.S. and internationally are providing support to X’s legal team as it challenges this unprecedented fine.
Online censorship can also have serious repercussions for individuals.
Just look at the active case against Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola—two Alliance Defending Freedom International clients. Both Päivi and the Bishop were criminally charged with “hate speech” for expressing basic Christians beliefs about marriage and sexuality. They were twice acquitted. But due to the insistence of the state prosecutor, both Päivi and Bishop Juhana faced a third trial, this time before the Finnish Supreme Court. Their case has been pending now for over six years.
The impetus for the criminal charges dates back to 2019 when Päivi posted a Scripture verse on Twitter. She was criminally charged, and she and the Bishop were subsequently also charged for a church pamphlet on Christian sexual ethics.
They have been prosecuted for “hate speech” under the country’s “War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” national law. But the reality is that under the DSA, we could see many more instances of heavy-handed censorship of online speech.
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.
Again, observe what’s happening to X. The social media platform is an American company, headquartered in America, run by an American citizen, and yet X is still having to defend itself against a 9-figure fine in a European court.
Beyond X, other large global platforms like Google may be inclined to conform their international content moderation policies to suit the EU Commission. From both a cost and risk analysis perspective, most big tech platforms covered by the DSA will opt to apply EU-friendly standards across the board, including in the U.S. As the U.S. House Judiciary Committee summarized last fall, “[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.”
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 it were to be reported 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 this encroachment extends beyond sovereign borders. Irish comedian Graham Linehan went through a legal ordeal after he posted comments on X expressing his opposition to gender ideology. Despite being in America (he was in Arizona at the time), Graham was arrested shortly after arriving at Heathrow Airport in September 2025. While an investigation into Graham ultimately yielded nothing and was dropped, the comedian still had to endure all manner of controversy due to the DSA’s overreach.
It’s tragic, it’s troubling, and it’s already happening.
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 for all of us. 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 God-given gift that belongs to everyone.
Related Articles
