BRUSSELS – The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), fully implemented in February 2025, is raising serious concerns about the future of online free speech, according to ADF International. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel Europe, writes in an ADF newsletter that while the US champions free expression, the EU is taking a “dangerous turn towards censorship” through the DSA.
The DSA grants governments and tech giants significant power to control online content under the guise of creating a “safer online environment.” However, critics argue that vague terms like “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech” are being used to suppress dissenting voices. Social media platforms, facing hefty fines, are pressured to remove content, shadow-ban users, and suspend accounts, often without transparency or due process.
Portaru paints a concerning picture: “Imagine logging into your social media account only to find that your posts have disappeared. No warning. No explanation. Just gone. Your lawful opinions on life, marriage, or family are quietly erased simply because they are deemed ‘controversial’.”
The article contrasts the US’s Section 230, which protects platforms from liability for user content (with exceptions for incitement to violence), with the DSA. Under the DSA, large platforms must remove illegal content or face penalties, and must also mitigate risks from disinformation. This difference in approach is seen as a fundamental divergence in how online speech is regulated.
Even some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who initially supported the DSA are now expressing alarm, calling for revisions or annulment. They worry that the law effectively turns tech companies into unaccountable “speech police,” stifling debate.
Despite these concerns, EU officials are doubling down on enforcement, promising increased fact-checking and content removals, with a goal of censoring flagged speech within 24 hours. Critics argue that the DSA fails to address the crucial question of who defines terms like “disinformation” and “hate speech,” and who holds these “digital gatekeepers” accountable.
The article warns that the DSA risks creating an internet governed by fear, where platforms over-police content to avoid penalties, leading to self-censorship and the silencing of challenging voices. It also raises the specter of global censorship, as tech companies may adopt stricter standards worldwide to comply with EU regulations.
The case of Billboard Chris, a Canadian citizen facing trial in Australia for content posted on X (formerly Twitter), is cited as an example of this global reach. His alleged offense? Criticizing a WHO appointee in a post that was geo-blocked by Australia’s “E-Safety Commission.” ADF International argues that this case highlights how censorship regimes are becoming increasingly transnational.
ADF International, through its Brussels office, is actively challenging the DSA, emphasizing the importance of defending the foundational right to free speech. The article concludes with a call for public support in this effort.