Recently, the European Commission (EU) fined X and Elon Musk $140 million because it/he had failed to control "harmful" content “in a brazen move to control free speech.”
Elon Musk’s response – the fine was “Bull***t” and violated “Freedom of Speech (which) is the Bedrock (of) Society.” He later tweeted, “The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so that governments can better represent their people.”
READ MORE: Musk Gives Epic One-Word Response to Insane EU X Speech Fine, Gets Backing From Rubio
Sorry Elon, but abolishing the EU will accomplish nothing.
The real problem is that the individual EU nations, the entire English-speaking world minus the U.S., and all other nations, do not actually protect freedom of speech. All – including Canada – have speech codes, which allow them to prosecute those who say something “harmful.” By "harmful," they often mean speech regarding Islam and racial/ethnic minorities.
As I said before:
"...[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.”
However, these speech codes also cover a citizen’s criticism of the governments and their policies, of the concept of DEI, objections to “climate change,” etc.
As an aside, let me stress that what we are talking about is government censorship of speech, not a private company restricting speech, if it is not initiated by a government. We are also not talking about speech that is intimidation coupled with likely assault, as happens on campus when someone screams obscenities against “Zionists” (i.e., Jews) and raises his fists in anger towards a man wearing a kippah.
In the EU, even political leaders who disagree with elite opinions can be prosecuted and punished. One major example is Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician whose party is one of the most popular in that nation. Wilders has experienced a lengthy pressure campaign from the Dutch elites and has been tried twice for his speech.
During Wilders' first trial, I compared it to the judicial farce that occurred in the novel, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Wilders faced five hate speech charges for inciting hatred and/or discriminating against Muslims, for describing Islam as “fascist,” and comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf. His possible punishments ranged from a prison sentence, up to a year, or a substantial fine. Dutch prosecutors originally declined to prosecute Wilders, but a three-judge appeals court panel overruled the prosecutors' objections. No jurors participated in the trial. The three-judge panel decided the Wilders verdict and punishment — literally acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury.
The trial showcased some crazy judicial bias that eventually led to a new panel of judges:
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."
In 2011, the new panel took over, and the prosecutors once again recommended an acquittal. The judicial panel, once again, ignored them. The defense called for Wilders' acquittal in the name of free speech, justice, and democracy. The lead defense lawyer also quipped that he had never seen a trial where the defense could have adopted the prosecution's arguments.
On June 23, 2011, the Dutch court acquitted Wilders. But their reasoning was not comforting:
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.
And because Geert Wilders was a leader of a major party in parliament, and because of the other context, the court reasoned that he should not be convicted for his “harmful” speech.
This context, of course, would not be available to some poor Dutch schlub who was not a parliamentarian and more reckless in his speech.
What should disturb Americans is that these types of speech codes are coming to America, and not just through the X fines from the EU. Under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, certain speech was punished, sometimes by skirting the Constitution and the law, and other times in a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal manner. In 2012, the Obama administration used some staged demonstrations in the Arab world to go after a California-based filmmaker's amateurish film depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed in a negative light. The filmmaker was eventually jailed for probation violations.
Then, during the Biden administration, and immediately before it, the federal government – acting at the behest of the Biden administration OR left-wing government elites to oppose Donald Trump – censored and/or deplatformed critics of the left-wing elites.
Unfortunately, the next Democrat president will almost certainly prolong this disturbing trend.
Editor's Note: President Trump is leading America into the "Golden Age" as Democrats try desperately to stop it.
Help us continue to report on President Trump's successes. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member