A new bipolar order of speech is unfolding before our eyes. On one side, the United States is energetically recommitting to its free speech heritage. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the UK and Europe are tightening the noose of censorship. This divergence is not just a policy debate—it is a fundamental split in the Western world, one that will determine whether future generations will live in freedom or under the shadow of state control.
Case in point: on his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at curbing government-led censorship. “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society,” the order states, reaffirming America’s constitutional commitment to free speech. The next day, the European Parliament doubled down on social media censorship, convening a meeting on enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping European Union law that polices online speech for “disinformation” and other “harmful material” with unfettered authority. This juxtaposition alone makes clear that, for speech, two irreconcilable visions are on a collision course.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez synthesized the EU’s censorious approach at the recent World Economic Forum, stating that more social media regulation is needed for the sake of “our social cohesion, our mental health, and our democracies.” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took it even further:
We have freedom of speech in Europe and Germany (…) but we don’t accept it if it’s supporting extreme-right positions.
This is the European model—one where governments dictate acceptable speech and criminalize dissent.
The cost of censorship in Europe and the UK is already devastating. British army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was criminally convicted for silently praying near an abortion facility—a thought crime made possible by “buffer zone” laws. In Germany, police recently raided the home of a pensioner for posting an “offensive” satire about government policies. Longstanding Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen is set to appear before the Supreme Court of her country for quoting the Bible on X, formerly Twitter. The frightening reality is that tomorrow this could be any one of us.
It is impossible for the West to sustain a future where one part is censored and the other remains free. Nowhere is this more evident than in the digital space.
Consider the case of Billboard Chris, a Canadian father known for his viral street advocacy against gender ideology. In March, with the support of ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, he will stand trial in Australia—not for actions taken on Australian soil, but for posting content on Twitter/X. His supposed offence? Criticizing a radical WHO appointee in a 2024 post that was subsequently geo-blocked by Australia’s “E-Safety Commission”. The result of this bureaucratic body’s overreach is that a Canadian citizen must travel to Australia to defend his right to speak freely on an American-owned social media platform.
Billboard Chris’ case underscores how censorship regimes are no longer confined by geography—authorities are extending their reach beyond their borders, creating a world where speech is increasingly regulated at a global scale. Emerging from the EU, the DSA and its web of regulations will undoubtedly have effects far beyond Europe. As social media platforms are forced to comply with EU rules or face massive penalties, they will increasingly apply these restrictions worldwide, setting a de facto global standard for speech regulation. This means that even those in free speech jurisdictions may find themselves silenced, as platforms opt for the lowest common denominator of compliance—rather than risk significant financial or legal repercussions.
The effect of the American political free speech resurgence cannot be overstated. Famously, Mark Zuckerberg has been among the first to realign, expressing regret over past censorship on Facebook. As he admitted in a stunning reversal, the platform went “too far,” and now they “want to fix that and return to that fundamental commitment to free expression”. The hope is that others read the writing on the wall and follow suit.
We are living in an unprecedented era of tension within the West over this most fundamental human right. All who value freedom must recognize the stakes. And these stakes are most dire for the average person that just wants the freedom to peacefully express their views without fear of government punishment. The great free speech divide is upon us. We must side unequivocally with free speech now if we are to have any hope of closing the censorship chasm that has torn apart the West.
The West’s Great Free Speech Divide
Piotr VaGla Waglowski, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
A new bipolar order of speech is unfolding before our eyes. On one side, the United States is energetically recommitting to its free speech heritage. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the UK and Europe are tightening the noose of censorship. This divergence is not just a policy debate—it is a fundamental split in the Western world, one that will determine whether future generations will live in freedom or under the shadow of state control.
Case in point: on his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at curbing government-led censorship. “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society,” the order states, reaffirming America’s constitutional commitment to free speech. The next day, the European Parliament doubled down on social media censorship, convening a meeting on enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping European Union law that polices online speech for “disinformation” and other “harmful material” with unfettered authority. This juxtaposition alone makes clear that, for speech, two irreconcilable visions are on a collision course.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez synthesized the EU’s censorious approach at the recent World Economic Forum, stating that more social media regulation is needed for the sake of “our social cohesion, our mental health, and our democracies.” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took it even further:
This is the European model—one where governments dictate acceptable speech and criminalize dissent.
The cost of censorship in Europe and the UK is already devastating. British army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was criminally convicted for silently praying near an abortion facility—a thought crime made possible by “buffer zone” laws. In Germany, police recently raided the home of a pensioner for posting an “offensive” satire about government policies. Longstanding Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen is set to appear before the Supreme Court of her country for quoting the Bible on X, formerly Twitter. The frightening reality is that tomorrow this could be any one of us.
It is impossible for the West to sustain a future where one part is censored and the other remains free. Nowhere is this more evident than in the digital space.
Consider the case of Billboard Chris, a Canadian father known for his viral street advocacy against gender ideology. In March, with the support of ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, he will stand trial in Australia—not for actions taken on Australian soil, but for posting content on Twitter/X. His supposed offence? Criticizing a radical WHO appointee in a 2024 post that was subsequently geo-blocked by Australia’s “E-Safety Commission”. The result of this bureaucratic body’s overreach is that a Canadian citizen must travel to Australia to defend his right to speak freely on an American-owned social media platform.
Billboard Chris’ case underscores how censorship regimes are no longer confined by geography—authorities are extending their reach beyond their borders, creating a world where speech is increasingly regulated at a global scale. Emerging from the EU, the DSA and its web of regulations will undoubtedly have effects far beyond Europe. As social media platforms are forced to comply with EU rules or face massive penalties, they will increasingly apply these restrictions worldwide, setting a de facto global standard for speech regulation. This means that even those in free speech jurisdictions may find themselves silenced, as platforms opt for the lowest common denominator of compliance—rather than risk significant financial or legal repercussions.
The effect of the American political free speech resurgence cannot be overstated. Famously, Mark Zuckerberg has been among the first to realign, expressing regret over past censorship on Facebook. As he admitted in a stunning reversal, the platform went “too far,” and now they “want to fix that and return to that fundamental commitment to free expression”. The hope is that others read the writing on the wall and follow suit.
We are living in an unprecedented era of tension within the West over this most fundamental human right. All who value freedom must recognize the stakes. And these stakes are most dire for the average person that just wants the freedom to peacefully express their views without fear of government punishment. The great free speech divide is upon us. We must side unequivocally with free speech now if we are to have any hope of closing the censorship chasm that has torn apart the West.
READ NEXT
Establishment Is Panicking as Germany’s Firewall Crumbles
Institutions, not Values: Salvaging Modern Britain
How J.K. Rowling Defeated the Transgender Movement