Surprisingly yesterday, Politico ran what at first looked like a rare pro-Musk story, sort of, headlined, “
EU takes shot at Musk over Trump interview — and misses.” The sub-headline added, “Europe’s chief digital official faces fire for ‘interfering’ in U.S. election.”
In the hours before Elon interviewed President Trump on Monday night’s live stream, birdlike European Union bureaucrat Thierry Breton* (*
as if that’s his real name) fired off a snooty, grandiloquent, multi-syllabic letter warning Elon Musk in paternalistic legalese that, and I quote,:
…all proportionate and effective mitigation measures must be put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. This is important against the background of recent examples of public unrest brought about by the amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation.
Thierry warmed to his theme, squawking more shrilly, verbosely
urging Mr. Musk to remember that, if he didn’t pull the plug on President Trump, the EU could, if it wants, stomp its fascistic boot on X and crush the platform flatter than a love bug on a SWAT Truck bumper:
As you know, formal proceedings are already ongoing against X under the Digital Services Act in areas linked to the dissemination of disinformation. Any negative effect of illegal content on X in the EU, attributed to the ineffectiveness of how X applies the relevant provisions of the DSA, may be relevant in the context of the ongoing proceedings and of the overall assessment of X's compliance with EU law. This has already been done in the recent past, in relation to the repercussions and amplification of terrorist content or content that incites violence, hate and racism in the EU, such as in the context of the recent riots in the United Kingdom.
I therefore urge you to promptly ensure the effectiveness of your systems and to report measures taken to my team.
I’ll translate the European dialect for you: Thierry wanted Musk to give his “team” a time-delayed off-switch, letting them shut Trump down in Europe the instant the President said something they didn’t like. Otherwise, things would go badly for X in the EU’s ongoing disinformation “investigation.”
Grandma Thierry probably knits with Grandma Garland.
Even more plainly:
That’s a nice social media platform you have there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it.
Thierry, who is
French, published his letter on Twitter/X (of course), so after due consideration and careful consultation with X’s lawyers, Elon Musk also responded on X, politely, in measured tones, but much more succinctly, with a
meme:
Politico’s article linked —but didn’t show— Musk’s tart meme. The story was not meant to praise Musk. It quickly became obvious it was meant to run
damage control for the EU. Frenchman Thierry appears now to be retreating into the arms of his cowardly Commission comrades, who were all too chicken to go on record:
The Europeans are hilarious. It never stops with those people. Talk about two-faced! European constitutions and charters are packed with virtue-signaling language about the fundamental value of
free speech. For example, in 1948 the United Nations adopted its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides in Article 19 that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Seems pretty clear. “Any media.” “Without interference.”
The Europeans adopted that rock-solid definition of free speech into their 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and have been chipping away at it ever since.
Many have complained about the deplorable erosion of free speech rights in Europe under the authoritarian banners of “hate speech” and “disinformation.” But who decides what is hateful or disinforming?
Theirry Breton? What qualifies someone as an “expert” in such matters?
Is there a test? Why should self-interested people be allowed anywhere near the levers of such untrammeled power? What recourse do citizens have when those powers are abused, especially given the legal immunity government agents enjoy? How can such nebulous standards possibly be consistent with the noble-minded free speech ideals scribbled into the various European charters, conventions, and constitutions?
Across the pond in the United States, the Constitutional standard for legally violating citizens’ fundamental speech rights when absolutely necessary is a standard called “strict scrutiny,” a standard that nebulous labels like “hate speech” and “disinformation” could not possibly meet. Challenged laws almost never survive strict scrutiny.
But the EU uses a “flexible” proportionality standard when evaluating restrictions on laws infringing fundamental rights. All I can say is, Thank God for the Constitution.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote, “The remedy to be applied (to bad speech) is more speech, not enforced silence.” What happened this week is Elon Musk gave the Europeans a little more speech.
And look at that! It worked. Justice Brandeis would be proud. The election-interfering Frenchman is in full retreat.
Politico notices Musk wins vs EU; Tucker interview reframes Watergate; AP makes accidental observation of Biblical proportions; pressured Olympic Committee pulls the plug on controversial sport; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
European Union told Elon Musk
European Union bureaucrat Thierry Breton
