This puts the EU’s online free speech stance in stark opposition to that of the US, following President Trump this week signing an Executive Order to end government censorship.

Although Virkkunen claimed the DSA “does not censor content”, MEPs from across the political spectrum voiced well-founded concerns that, in fact, it does.

Hungarian MEP Schaller-Baross Ernő said:

“Let’s call a spade a spade! In its current form, the DSA can also serve as a tool for political censorship…

“I’m afraid that in Europe the left… is not learning again. But this DSA must be abolished in this form. We don’t need more officials in Europe who censor…

“Freedom of expression and equal conditions must be ensured. This is the foundation of our democracy. Let’s say no to political censorship!”

Polish MEP Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik said:

“For you, democracy is when people think, write and speak directly and say what you tell them to with your leftist way of thinking.

“Right-wing and conservative views are ‘thought crime’ and today’s debate should be called ‘The need to strengthen censorship to protect the trough of those who govern the European Union’.”

In addition to institutionalising censorship, the DSA also lays the ground for shadow banning, which was highlighted in this week’s debate.

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to the protection of fundamental freedoms, including at the EU institutions, stated:

“On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order to end the weaponisation of the US government to promote censorship.

“On Tuesday, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.

“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.

“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.

“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.

“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”

US Response to DSA

In response to former Commissioner Thierry Breton’s letter to Musk this summer, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, wrote a strongly worded letter to Mr Breton.

In it, he said:

“We write to reiterate our position that the EU’s burdensome regulation of online speech must not infringe on protected American speech…

“Your threats against free speech do not occur in a vacuum, and the consequences are not limited to Europe. The harms caused by EU-imposed censorship spill across international borders, as many platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally.

“Thus, the EU’s regulatory censorship regime may limit what content Americans can view in the United States. American companies also have an enormous incentive to comply with the DSA and public threats from EU commissioners like you.”

Increasing Censorship Efforts

Other measures announced by Virkkunen this week include making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).

The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.

Anyone, be it an individual or an entity, can flag content they believe to be illegal.

Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

The concept of “hate speech” has no basis in international human rights law.

Because of their loose and vague nature, prohibitions on “hate speech” rely on the subjective perception of offended parties rather than objective harm.

Further, the definition of “hate speech” is not harmonised at the EU level, meaning that what is deemed illegal in one country may not be in another.