The European Union fined X and Elon Musk $140 million for failing to police content, and Musk angrily called the penalty “Bull***t” and insisted “Freedom of Speech (which) is the Bedrock (of) Society.” This article argues from a Republican perspective that the problem is deeper than Brussels: many democracies overseas do not truly protect free expression, their speech codes criminalize dissent, and those practices are seeping toward America. I explain how European hate-speech laws work in practice, illustrate with the Geert Wilders cases, and warn that U.S. administrations have sometimes mirrored foreign censorship tactics. The piece preserves key quotes and legal examples to show why defending free speech matters beyond corporate moderation fights.
The EU’s fine on X is a dramatic flashpoint, but it is not the root cause of the broader decline in free expression overseas. Officials in many countries treat “harmful” speech as a prosecutable offense, and that category often includes criticism of Islam, immigration, and policies favored by elites. When speech becomes a criminal matter, courts and prosecutors gain enormous discretion and the result is selective enforcement that targets dissenting voices more than powerful institutions.
Elon Musk’s reactions were blunt and unambiguous: the fine was “Bull***t” and he said the action violated “Freedom of Speech (which) is the Bedrock (of) Society.” He also tweeted, “The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so that governments can better represent their people.” Those lines capture a frustration many on the right feel: institutions that sit far from voters impose speech rules that citizens never approved and that punish political opponents.
It is important to distinguish government censorship from private moderation, though both matter. This discussion focuses on state action that leverages criminal penalties or legal threats to silence speech, not on a platform choosing its own rules. When a government weaponizes law to punish commentary it dislikes, freedom of speech is no longer an individual right but a privilege granted by the state to favored opinions and people.
Many European states have enacted laws that criminalize various forms of “hate” speech and grant prosecutors broad latitude. These laws can be used to protect ethnic or religious groups from offense, but in practice they often shield political elites and mainstream orthodoxies from criticism. The quoted legal analysis captures this risk plainly:
“…[M]any European nations have passed laws to criminalize the speech of their citizens to protect the feelings of ethnic or religious or gender minorities from racist/nationalist authoritarian groups. In Europe, a conviction for hate speech could even result in an actual prison term. Unfortunately, the truth of the statement under question rarely matters in a hate speech trial.”
One high-profile example is the repeated prosecution of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, whose critiques of Islam and immigration policy have drawn intense official scrutiny. Wilders faced multiple hate-speech charges and a judicial environment that at times looked biased against him, including judges who acted in ways that raised clear questions about fairness. The procedural oddities in his trials highlight how legal systems can be bent to punish political speech.
On the opening day of the trial, October 4, 2010, the presiding judge, Judge Moors, made a snide remark about Wilders…it became known that Judge Schalken had illegally met out-of-court with Hans Jansen, an expert witness, and attempted to influence Jansen to change his testimony to the detriment of Wilders. In this meeting, the judge also personally admonished Jansen: “(y)ou as an intellectual should not be mingling with such a chap (i.e., Wilders).”… the entire appeals court was embarrassed enough to approve Wilders’ request for a new judicial panel — but not embarrassed enough to cancel the trial itself. There was no need to cancel, you see, because as the presiding judge said: “It isn’t plausible that Schalken tried to influence Jansen,” so “(w)e cannot conclude that the defendant’s rights were violated.”
The final acquittal in Wilders’ case came with reasoning that still undercuts confidence in free expression protections. The court said context mattered so much that a prominent politician received de facto immunity when context favored him. That logic creates a two-tiered system: elites and office-holders get contextual leeway while ordinary citizens face strict enforcement for similar remarks.
To sum up their convoluted decision, the Court said that Wilders’ comments – even if they met all of the elements of the Dutch code – were excused by the statement’s “context.” In other words, the Court said, we must decide this case based on not just a plain evaluation of the elements of the crime, but also with a review and weighing of the following factors: who said the statement in question, where the statement was made, what statements preceded or followed the specific statement, and why the statement was made, etc. Only if the elements of the speech crimes were met AND the contextual factors called for a punishment should the defendant be convicted.
Americans should be wary because similar patterns have appeared in U.S. policy and enforcement under recent administrations. When the federal government pressures platforms, funds research that targets critics, or coordinates with private actors to suppress content, it borrows tactics from overseas speech regimes. That trend cuts against the free market of ideas and hands cultural elites tools to shut down opposition.
For Republicans, the answer is clear: defend speech robustly, oppose laws and policies that empower prosecutors or agencies to label dissent as harmful, and resist the creeping normalization of context-based exemptions that protect insiders. Free speech is messy and often offensive, but it is the foundation of self-government and a counterweight to concentrated power. If conservatives do not make that case forcefully, the law will continue to tilt toward censorship dressed up as protection.
Add comment