EU DSA Censorship Debate Heats Up

EU DSA Censorship: Is the Digital Services Act Threatening Global Free Speech?

The recent €120 million fine imposed on Elon Musk’s social media platform X by the European Union has reignited fierce debates about EU DSA censorship, with critics labeling it a draconian tool for imposing ideological standards on the world. In a widely shared post on X, DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) captured this sentiment: “The EU Digital Services Act is an outrageous attempt to stick their leftist definition of hate on rest of the world.

Europe has draconian restrictions on what you can say & post online. Their rules apply to Americans. They are determined to impose their speech standards on us.” This statement, accompanied by a video clip from Fox Business discussing free speech debates, has garnered over 5,700 likes and sparked hundreds of replies echoing concerns about overreach. As of December 7, 2025, the post highlights growing transatlantic tensions, but a closer look reveals a complex interplay between online safety regulations and fundamental rights.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), enacted in 2022 and fully applicable since 2024, aims to create a safer digital space by holding online platforms accountable for illegal content, disinformation, and transparency issues. It targets “very large online platforms” (VLOPs) like X, Meta, Google, and TikTok, requiring them to mitigate risks such as hate speech, child exploitation, and election interference.

Proponents argue it’s essential for protecting users in a borderless internet, where harmful content can spread rapidly. For instance, the DSA mandates ad transparency, researcher data access, and clear content moderation policies to prevent manipulation. EU officials, including Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen, emphasize that the law is about “accountability, not censorship,” applying uniformly to all platforms operating in the EU market of over 450 million people.

However, criticisms of EU DSA censorship have mounted, particularly from U.S. perspectives, where free speech is protected under the First Amendment with fewer restrictions. Detractors claim the DSA empowers unelected bureaucrats to define and police “hate speech” and “disinformation” in ways that stifle dissent. A September 2025 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) questions whether the DSA violates freedom of expression, noting that its broad risk assessments could lead to over-moderation of lawful content.

Similarly, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in April 2023 called the DSA a “good start but not enough,” warning of censorship risks due to vague standards and pressure on platforms to err on the side of removal. More than 100 global free speech experts, in a November 2025 letter coordinated by ADF International, urged the EU to address these concerns during the DSA’s review, but the Commission deferred substantive changes until 2027.

EU DSA Censorship and Its Extraterritorial Reach

A key flashpoint in the EU DSA censorship debate is its application beyond Europe’s borders. While the DSA technically governs services accessible in the EU, its penalties—up to 6% of global revenue—compel platforms to adopt compliant practices worldwide to avoid operational silos. This “Brussels Effect” means American users could feel the ripple effects, as companies like X might globally tighten rules on speech to satisfy EU demands.

For example, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in July 2025 released a report titled “The Foreign Censorship Threat,” accusing the DSA of compelling U.S. platforms to censor content that would be protected under American law. The report cites EU statements that penalties are “dissuasive” to encourage compliance, potentially leading to self-censorship on topics like politics or social issues.

Does the EU DSA apply directly to Americans? No, but indirectly yes. Platforms serving EU users must adhere, and since many are U.S.-based, this creates friction. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in August 2025 warned companies like Google and Meta against over-applying DSA rules in the U.S., fearing it could chill domestic speech. Critics, including ADF Legal, argue this could “cripple free speech even in America,” as platforms prioritize global harmony over regional freedoms. In the X fine case, violations included deceptive blue checkmarks (now pay-for-verification), inadequate ad repositories, and restricted data access—issues the EU says undermine trust, but which Musk dismisses as pretext for control.

Recent X discussions amplify these views. Posts from users like @ada_lluch call to “abolish the EU,” framing the DSA as regulatory imperialism. Others, such as @RealIggyLibre, echo the original quote, decrying the EU’s extension of “strict censorship rules” globally. A thread by @shanaka86 describes the fine and Musk’s response as a “collision between 20th-century institutions and 21st-century infrastructure,” with over 9,700 likes. Even international voices, like Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, question Musk’s selective outrage, pointing to real censorship in Russia where X is banned.

Defenses Against EU DSA Censorship Claims

EU defenders counter that the DSA isn’t about ideology but harm prevention. The University of Chicago Journal of International Law notes the Act addresses rising hate speech and disinformation, which have real-world impacts like inciting violence or undermining elections. TechPolicy.Press argues the X fine is “normal, boring” enforcement, not an attack on speech, focusing on transparency lapses rather than content. The Atlantic Council highlights a U.S.-EU “talking past each other” dynamic, where Americans see absolutist free speech, while Europeans prioritize dignity and safety post-WWII.

The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law critiques the DSA for potentially empowering tech giants’ “unchecked power” in moderation, but sees it as a step toward balanced regulation. Notably, TikTok avoided a similar fine by improving its ad system, showing compliance is feasible without exiting markets.

Implications for Global Free Speech

The EU DSA censorship controversy underscores broader geopolitical divides. U.S. figures like General Mike Flynn advocate pulling from NATO, viewing the EU as promoting “censorship” and globalism. In Europe, ECR Group MEPs question the fine’s proportionality, pushing for reforms to avoid politicized enforcement. For users, benefits include reduced scams and targeted ads, but risks involve chilled expression on sensitive topics.

Looking ahead, legal challenges loom. X plans appeals, potentially testing DSA against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. If upheld, it could inspire similar laws elsewhere; if struck down, it might weaken global efforts against online harms. The R Street Institute warns the DSA could hinder AI innovations like overviews, damaging U.S. firms. Meanwhile, X’s surge as Europe’s top news app post-fine ironicizes the debate—users flock to it despite regulations.

In truth-seeking terms, the DSA isn’t purely “leftist” censorship but a flawed attempt at balance. Europe’s history of authoritarianism informs stricter rules, while America’s emphasizes individualism. Empirical data shows increased content removals under DSA, but also fewer reported harms. The real question: Can regulations evolve without eroding freedoms? As debates rage, platforms like X remain vital for airing them.

👉 Share your thoughts in the comments, and explore more insights on our Journal and Magazine. Please consider becoming a subscriber, thank you: https://dunapress.org/subscriptions – Follow J&M Duna Press on social media. Join the Oslo Meet by connecting experiences and uniting solutions: https://oslomeet.org

References:

• https://x.com/cb_doge/status/1997449249232183512
• https://www.csis.org/blogs/europe-corner/does-eus-digital-services-act-violate-freedom-speech
• https://techpolicy.press/the-eus-fine-against-x-is-not-about-speech-or-censorship
• https://adfinternational.org/eu-ignores-free-speech-concerns-in-review-of-censorial-digital-services-act
• http://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-censorship-threat-how-european-unions-digital-services-act-compels
• https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/digital-services-act-and-eu-global-regulator-internet
• https://netchoice.org/house-judiciary-exposes-global-censorship-threat-posed-by-the-eus-digital-services-act/
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/us-eu-dispute-over-free-speech-is-set-to-escalate/
• https://csl.mpg.de/851840/digital-services-act-does-internet-regulation-threaten-freedom-of-expression
• https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/digital-services-act-keeping-us-safe-online-2025-09-22_en
• https://www.wired.com/story/big-tech-companies-in-the-us-have-been-told-not-to-apply-the-digital-services-act/
• https://atr.org/european-commission-makes-first-use-of-its-latest-censorship-tool/
• https://adflegal.org/article/the-eu-digital-services-act-could-cripple-free-speech-even-in-america/
• https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/e1e7805d/digital-services-act
• https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/the-digital-services-act-could-kill-ai-overviews-in-the-eu-and-damage-american-companies/
• https://www.transatlantic-lawyer.com/what-is-the-new-eu-digital-services-act-and-what-does-it-mean-for-you/