But the letter also displays a worrying willingness by the EU — a body that, at least in the past, was a global champion of the right to free expression — to wade into murky waters. While the EU no doubt sees this action as a positive step in its role as the backbone of the emerging global information police force, others will surely see it as a case of astonishing government overreach. Worse still, that the EU should threaten Musk for interviewing a presidential candidate shows a desire to stifle debate and hints at institutional partisanship.

On its face, Breton’s letter is about ensuring compliance with European law. In reality, the letter represents a broader trend of state influence over digital platforms. The fact that “recent events in the United Kingdom” is referenced in the first sentence — before even mentioning the actual interview in question — reveals the power dynamic at work. Those recent events in the UK are the riots that swept the nation in the wake of the killing of three children — and the equally sweeping crackdown by the British authorities on people who expressed ideas or opinions found objectionable by the police. As the UK’s official government account warned just days before the Musk interview: “Think before you post.”

The effort to control information is not, in itself, illegitimate. While a broad interpretation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech has been enshrined by two centuries of American case law, the same is not true in Europe, where there is a markedly different stance on the issue. The real problem in this case, however, is the appearance that laws like the DSA are being used in service of influencing an election.

This was underlined in the US when a reporter at the Washington Post echoed the Breton line by asking Biden’s press secretary if the administration planned to “intervene” in the Musk-Trump interview. As with Breton’s letter, the Post reporter’s rationalisation was that there could be “misinformation” spread by the interview. The fact that the press secretary “welcomed” the reporter’s concern, instead of reminding him that doing so would be a grave violation of electoral norms, underscores the point.

What we’re seeing is an embrace of speech controls that, at minimum, coincide in timing, substance and political affiliation with the prerogatives of the global Left. This phenomenon, what we might call the emerging Axis of Censorship, is not just about regulating speech; it is about manipulating democratic processes — like freedom of the press and of individual expression — to favour certain outcomes over others.

The response to Breton’s letter has been fierce. But perhaps it was most sharply put by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who asked, “Who are you? An escapee from the fallen Soviet Union? What will you do next? Bring back the Gulag? People ask me: who is subverting our democracies? Well, here is Mr. Breton, in his own words.”

---

Ashley Rindsberg is author of The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’ Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History

AshleyRindsberg

---