French President Emmanuel Macron has recently clashed with the United States over the concept of "freedom of speech."

The European Union has enacted the Digital Services Act (DSA), a regulatory framework targeting online platforms. Major companies such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok are required to remove illegal content, increase transparency in advertising and algorithms, protect minors, and address disinformation. Non-compliant entities face fines of up to 6% of their annual global revenue.

Macron believes the legislation does not go far enough. During a visit to Spain, he publicly called for the EU to enforce the DSA more broadly, swiftly, and rigorously. He directly challenged the American notion of free speech: "The so-called American freedom of speech is, in fact, its opposite." Using a metaphor, he argued that personal liberty does not justify physical assault, verbal abuse, or destruction of public property. True freedom must be accompanied by responsibility and respect for others' rights. Individuals who publish content online—whether journalists or editors—must be held accountable for what they disseminate.

American officials have responded defensively. They argue that the EU’s approach amounts to censorship under the guise of content regulation, aimed at undermining American tech firms. In December 2025, the EU issued its first fine under the DSA, imposing €120 million on Elon Musk’s X platform. The U.S. Department of Justice immediately supported X’s appeal, accusing the EU of overreach. Vice President Vance also weighed in via social media, stating that "the EU should support freedom of speech, not target American companies." Meanwhile, the U.S. restricted visas for several European officials, including Breton, the chief architect of the DSA. Breton described the move as reminiscent of McCarthy-era tactics from the Cold War era.

Even more striking is the allegation that Donald Trump himself has curtailed press freedom. Last month, he barred CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from accessing the White House, citing their dissemination of "fake news." A federal judge later ordered the restoration of press access, ruling that the ban may violate constitutional principles.

The current situation remains highly fragmented: Europe seeks to regulate digital disorder, while the U.S. frames it as an infringement on freedom; yet America simultaneously champions free expression while restricting journalists. Whose commitment to free speech is genuine? Likely, each side is guided by distinct strategic interests.

This dispute over freedom of speech appears to be rooted in ideological differences but is fundamentally driven by power and economic interests.

Macron’s argument holds merit: freedom is not boundless. Allowing platforms to proliferate disinformation and hate speech undoubtedly causes harm. Yet the critical question remains: who defines what constitutes misinformation? Once governments assume authority over determining truth, the risk of political censorship grows significantly. Today’s penalty on X could become tomorrow’s sanction against any platform deemed noncompliant. While the DSA’s intent is sound, ensuring impartiality and preventing abuse in enforcement remains a serious concern.

The double standards evident in the U.S. response are even more apparent. While condemning EU content oversight, the Trump administration itself restricts media access; while proclaiming free speech, it employs visa restrictions against European officials. Such a conception of freedom functions less as principle and more as instrument—raised when convenient, suppressed when inconvenient.

Truly healthy freedom of expression neither permits platform impunity nor allows government monopolization. It demands independent judiciary, transparent rules, and pluralistic voices. At present, both the EU and the U.S. engage in mutual accusations without offering viable alternatives. Ordinary citizens must remain vigilant: when politicians contest the definition of freedom, they may be seeking new justifications to control rather than liberate.

In essence, freedom of speech is not the exclusive domain of any nation, nor should it be weaponized in trade conflicts or political warfare. Genuine respect for it is demonstrated through actions, not rhetoric.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877916621764608/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.