The Trump administration schooled Europe on free speech. Why ignore the lesson at home?
- Share via
Vice President JD Vance’s wise words to Europe about U.S. commitments to free speech are on a collision course with some of what’s happening stateside. The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are headed in the opposite direction of Vance’s prudent remarks.
On Feb. 11, Vance valiantly informed an artificial intelligence summit in Paris that “American AI will not be co-opted into a tool for authoritarian censorship.” A few days later he told an audience in Munich, “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”
His scolding is well deserved. The U.K. recently fined a man for praying silently, while not obstructing anyone, near an abortion clinic. Last month, a CBS News “60 Minutes” segment highlighted Germany’s speech policing by interviewing prosecutors involved in predawn raids of homes and electronics sparked by people’s online comments critical of politicians. FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, has collected other egregious examples from around the continent.
Complaints of antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus have skyrocketed. Figuring out when speech is protected or violating the rights of others is no easy task.
Thankfully, the 1st Amendment protects Americans from such violations of their free speech rights. That’s why recent actions by the trade commission and the communications commission are so odd.
On Feb. 20, the FTC launched a public inquiry “to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law.” But because those tech platforms, including Facebook, YouTube and X, are all private companies, the 1st Amendment, which protects citizens from government censorship, as observed in Europe, is not implicated. Just the opposite: The FTC’s implied crackdown on speech decisions of private tech companies is itself the threat to free speech.
By way of a real-world example, just as you should not expect the 1st Amendment to apply to your speech while you’re visiting Disneyland, don’t expect it on a social media platform either. Platforms can feel like and are often referred to as the town square, but just like Disneyland’s Main Street, U.S.A, they are not actually a public place. They are, in fact, private property owned by entities with free speech rights of their own and a vested interest in curating behavior to create a specific environment.
The next great free speech battle will be over artificial intelligence, which deserves as much constitutional deference as older communications technologies.
Tech platforms are within their rights to remove content they do not wish to carry, just as Disney can remove you from its parks if you’re waving a political banner or holding forth on a soapbox or otherwise “speaking” in a way that violates its rules. You may not like the outcome, but the legality of these expulsions is not in serious question.
The same situation of private activity as opposed to government infringement of constitutionally protected speech is being ignored across town at the FCC too.
Before being elevated by President Trump to chairman, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr sent a letter in November to Alphabet, Apple, Meta and Microsoft accusing them of participating in a “cartel of censorship” by contracting with content moderation consulting company NewsGuard.
Likewise, the FCC’s foray into newsrooms defies the 1st Amendment. The agency is investigating KCBS All News radio in San Francisco for its coverage of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement activities, which is protected by the 1st Amendment. It has also restarted a previously closed investigation of CBS News’ editing of a preelection interview with Kamala Harris. That action was followed by Trump calling for CBS to “lose its license.” The agency has also opened an investigation into NBCUniversal and its parent company, Comcast, private corporations, over their DEI practices.
With the TikTok ban, will the U.S. government for the first time in history outlaw a form of communication?
Even before the 2024 presidential election, Carr announced on cable news that the agency would look into whether a cameo appearance by Harris on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” had violated the “equal time rule,” indicating license revocation was an option. As it turns out, the Trump campaign was given equal time by the network, but the most important question is why the anachronistic rule still exists at all.
This political moment provides an opportunity to get rid of outdated legacy regulations that can be used to favor or disfavor either party.
If an equal time rule for broadcasters ever made sense, it was on the basis of scarcity of news outlets. But today’s information and entertainment landscape is filled with cable news, social media, websites, satellite radio and many other media beyond licensed broadcasters. Why not get the FCC, whether led by Republicans or Democrats, out of the speech policing business altogether?
The United States should take its own advice and reduce executive agencies’ meddling in speech issues online and over the airwaves.
Jessica Melugin is the director of the Center for Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The Trump administration asserts that the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) risks imposing censorship incompatible with U.S. free speech traditions, arguing that the regulations threaten American tech companies’ ability to operate without government overreach[1][2].
- FCC Chair Brendan Carr has criticized the DSA as a form of “protectionist regulation,” warning that it could force U.S. firms to comply with rules that conflict with their commitments to free expression[2].
- The administration positions its opposition to EU digital policies as a defense of U.S. sovereignty, framing foreign regulations like the DSA and Digital Markets Act (DMA) as exploitative measures that undermine American economic and national security interests[3][4].
Different views on the topic
- European policymakers and analysts argue that the Trump administration’s confrontational approach to digital governance—including threats of tariffs—ignores the EU’s goal of ensuring a competitive and rights-respecting online ecosystem, while deepening transatlantic divisions[3].
- Critics highlight hypocrisy in the administration’s stance, noting that while it condemns EU content moderation rules, domestic agencies like the FCC have pursued investigations into U.S. media outlets’ editorial decisions, raising concerns about government overreach into free speech[1][2].
- The EU has emphasized the need for “digital sovereignty,” advocating for regulations like the DSA and DMA to curb the dominance of U.S. tech giants and foster a more equitable global digital market[3].
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
