FREE SPEECH: HUMAN RIGHT OR STATE'S RIGHT
The EU Commission and the leaders of the national EU member states are going full speed ahead with cracking down on free speech online, particularly the UK, France, Germany, Spain and some Scandinavian states, framing it as 'digital sovereignty'. The weapon of choice is the European Digital Services Act. But the Trump administration is not taking it lying down. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained in his speech at the Munich Security Conference this weekend to much acclaim (link), the US considers itself the custodian of Western values, like free speech. Mike Benz, Executive Director of the free speech watchdog, Foundation for Freedom Online (website) is walking us through the reactions of the transatlantic censoring industry to a new initiative by US Undersecretary Sarah Rogers.
Feb. 15, 2026 Mike Benz: The Blob Is Going CRAZY Over This.
A new move by US Undersecretary Sarah Rogers is causing The Blob to have its most insane meltdown of the year.
The US State Department's Public Diplomacy branch will begin funding charities and think tanks in Europe that promote free speech online and digital freedom.
The EU, Brussels and shadow diplomacy elements of the American NGO-plex and the CIA, are reacting with utterly empty arguments.
The Blob is losing their minds because their grant scheme to silence opposition is getting push back.
It's a reverse USAID, if you will. But to take this hypothesis to its final analysis, the question is, does the right of citizens to free speech trump states' sovereignty?
Or to put it another way: do states have the right to silence their citizens? Or can they enact laws that suppress them?
For a class of people that do not stop talking about 'democracy' and 'human rights' the answer should be quite clear.
So what's it to be? Human rights or the rule of law?
The problem here is the definition: to Americans, human rights are inherent in human beings; that's why they are called human rights. To Europeans, the State determines what is a right and what is not.
Or to put it another way: do states have the right to silence their citizens? Or can they enact laws that suppress them?
For a class of people that do not stop talking about 'democracy' and 'human rights' the answer should be quite clear.
So what's it to be? Human rights or the rule of law?
The problem here is the definition: to Americans, human rights are inherent in human beings; that's why they are called human rights. To Europeans, the State determines what is a right and what is not.
Comments
Post a Comment