Free Speech Absolutism: A Gateway for Competitive Authoritarianism?
Authoritarian internet models, as seen in China and Russia are characterised by extensive state control, censorship and surveillance. These regimes actively restrict access to information, suppress critical views, and manipulate online narratives to maintain power. They often create “walled gardens,” segregating their citizens from the global internet and limiting exposure to outside perspectives.
In the West, freedom of speech is highly valued and seen as a human right protected under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Freedom of speech is the right to express oneself without government censorship or interference. However, this right isn’t absolute; it is often limited to preventing harm, such as incitement to violence, defamation, or threats. “Free speech absolutism,” as advocated by figures like Elon Musk, suggests that virtually all speech should be permitted, with minimal restrictions. While this approach can foster open dialogue, it also creates vulnerabilities to manipulation, the spread of disinformation and hate speech.
Platforms operating under this principle may struggle to effectively moderate illegal content, inadvertently amplifying extremist views and undermining democratic discourse. While “free speech absolutism” can be exploited by authoritarian regimes or create an environment that further encourages their tactics, it is distinct from the authoritarian model itself. The crucial difference lies in the intent and mechanisms of control: one actively restricts and manipulates freedom of speech, while the other prioritises unrestricted freedom of speech, often neglecting the potential consequences.
Authoritarianism meets Free Speech Absolutism
The increasing threat of rising competitive authoritarianism in countries such as Georgia, Hungary, and Slovakia poses a significant challenge in the context of “free speech absolutism.” Whilst it is important to protect freedom of speech, often free speech absolutionists hide behind claims of free speech whilst doing the opposite; this goes for individuals (like Musk, who has proven to be more than willing to take down content he disagrees with), as well as governments. This is often done by exploiting the principles of democratic discourse, manipulating legal frameworks, state resources, and media control to suppress dissent while maintaining a façade of democracy. This manipulation creates an environment ripe for the spread of disinformation, both generated internally and originating from foreign interference resulting in the erosion of the foundations of democratic institutions from within. The emphasis on unrestricted speech, characteristic of “free speech absolutism,” can be easily exploited by such regimes, allowing them to amplify propaganda and silence opposition under the guise of free expression. Therefore, while seemingly promoting open discourse, “free speech absolutism” provides a fertile ground for competitive authoritarian regimes to consolidate power and undermine democratic values by manipulating the information landscape.
In Hungary, Orbán’s government has been accused of undermining media pluralism by disproportionately funding media outlets aligned with its political platform and blocking anti-establishment funding schemes. This preferential funding creates a distorted media landscape where pro-government voices are amplified while critical or independent media struggle to survive due to a lack of resources, effectively creating a form of censorship by financial means. This imbalance hinders the public’s access to diverse perspectives and limits their ability to make informed decisions.
The digital infrastructure of tech platforms sets grounds for producing informational bubbles that spin public opinion and undermine democratic processes which exacerbate this issue. Repeated exposure to disinformation and conspiracy theories can normalise these false narratives, fostering public distrust in credible information sources. With disinformation being used as a weapon to undermine independent media, this “post-truth” climate has eroded trust in institutions.
Enhancing Digital Governance in Europe
In order to protect the integrity of its democratic processes, Europe has taken a significant regulatory approach to combating digital misinformation, such as the Digital Services Act and the Code of Practice on disinformation. However, a more thorough and flexible approach to digital governance is needed to meet the difficulties presented by the newly adopted shift towards “Free Speech Absolutism” by the new US administration.
The EU should uphold its existing regulatory framework and leverage it to address the challenges posed by “free speech absolutism,” particularly regarding disinformation and hate speech. The Digital Services Act provides a strong foundation for holding platforms like X accountable for the illegal content they host. Recent investigations into X under the DSA demonstrate the EU’s commitment to enforcing these regulations. Furthermore, in February 2025, a Berlin district court ruled that X must provide researchers from Democracy Reporting International access to real-time data pursuant to Article 40(12) DSA (the right to access research data). The goal of this move was to make it easier to monitor disinformation before the national election in Germany. The conflict between social media companies’ data control and the need for openness to safeguard democratic processes is highlighted by this court case. The outcome in this case could establish important guidelines for the rights to access data and the use of social media in elections. It is crucial for the EU to remain steadfast in enforcing the DSA, even when faced with pressure from powerful figures like Elon Musk.
Furthermore, the EU should continue to champion a values-based approach to digital governance, prioritising online safety, privacy, and accuracy. Gillespie emphasises the importance of considering public values when shaping digital policy. This approach stands in contrast to “free speech absolutism,” which often overlooks the potential harms associated with unrestricted online expression.
International Cooperation and Media Literacy
The EU’s response should also involve international cooperation. While commentators raise concerns about the potential for a clash between the US and EU tech agendas, these concerns underscore the need for Europe to prepare for such challenges. Working with international partners to establish shared standards for online content moderation could help address the transnational nature of disinformation and hate speech.
Finally, fostering media literacy among citizens is key to building societal resilience against disinformation. Empowering individuals to critically evaluate online information can help mitigate the impact of harmful content. This multifaceted approach, combining robust regulation, a values-driven framework, international cooperation, and citizen empowerment, can help the EU effectively navigate the challenges posed by “free speech absolutism” and safeguard its digital space.
Additionally, promoting media pluralism—a varied and autonomous media environment—can aid in thwarting the prevalence of singular narratives and the dissemination of disinformation. In the EU’s battle against online misinformation, the Code’s incorporation under Article 45 of the DSA represents a significant milestone. This change from a voluntary framework to a regulated structure ensures better accountability and transparency in combating disinformation by making the promises made by key platforms auditable and enforceable. This move strengthens the EU’s position as a leader in digital governance and establishes a standard for international initiatives to protect free speech while fostering a more secure and reliable online environment.
The Way Ahead: Increasing Democratic Sturdiness
The rising threat of digital authoritarianism and disinformation must be addressed by democratic nations using a multifaceted strategy such as improving platform accountability at least in the scope of the EU wide regulation that is already in place. The DSA and other regulatory frameworks must be strictly enforced, and big tech should be subject to more scrutiny. Furthermore, media literacy initiatives are, at times, ad-hoc and free-standing. It is important that significant investment is made in media literacy to counter the messages of populist political parties across the globe. Increasing spending on media literacy programs and education across the EU is of great significance.
Despite the current shift in the US administration’s policy on platform governance, one should not give up efforts on seeking international collaboration opportunities as disinformation must be addressed globally. The United States, the European Union, and friends should work together on research, data sharing, and coordinated counter-disinformation campaigns. Currently, some initiatives doing this occur through the G7 and UN institutions.
Final Thoughts: An Urgent Appeal
The fight against disinformation is not merely a technological challenge; it is a battle for global security and the future of democracy. The combined strength of international cooperation, digitally literate society, and responsible platform governance is crucial to safeguard democratic values against manipulation and totalitarian tendencies.
