In July 2024, after a shocking massacre at a children’s dance class in Southport, UK, speculation about the identity of the killer sparked widespread unrest across the country. Riots erupted, fueled by public anger over immigration policy. Amid the chaos, Lucy Connolly, a mother from Northampton, posted a tweet calling for “mass deportation” while expressing her indifference to the riots.
She is now serving a 31-month prison sentence for that tweet. Across Europe, this increasingly appears to be the new normal: expressing an opinion the state deems immoral or “hateful” has become a punishable offense.
European citizens have been losing their freedoms, bit by bit, as integration advances. The Lisbon Treaty, signed in 2007 and in force since 2009, gave legal personality to the European Union, allowing it to act as a State in international treaties, increasing its global weight and reducing the power of member countries, centralizing important decisions.
One acquired competence was the harmonization of certain crimes across all member states, regardless of their national legislation. Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that serious crimes such as terrorism, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation of minors be treated in a uniform manner.
The problem is not in the nature of these crimes but in the power given to a central entity. It was predictable that the scope could be extended to increasingly subjective matters.
In December 2021, the European Commission proposed including “hate speech and hate crimes” in the formal extension. Brussels justified the move by citing the rise of politicians and activists it classifies as far-right in several member states—figures whose rhetoric centers on immigration and criticism of multiculturalism, which the Commission deemed alarming.
The European Parliament explicitly referred to the so-called “Great Replacement” theory as a conspiratorial narrative that was being normalized in the political discourse of these political actors, demanding a coordinated response.
Among those targeted are parties from the new European right, vocal on matters of uncontrolled immigration, and many of which have grown as part of national governments or at least with significant parliamentary representation.
By attacking democratically elected parties, Brussels enters the domain of ideological control over its member states, imposing a singular ideology. In this framework, artificial intelligence emerges for European institutions as a tool at the service of censorship.
The AI Act, under discussion in Brussels, intends to regulate the use of AI, imposing automatic filters to identify and eliminate speech considered offensive or hateful. Cathy O’Neil, author of Weapons of Math Destruction, warns that algorithms are not neutral; they reflect the values of those who program them. Subjectivity is inevitable.
Also, Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, in the German Law Journal, warns about the risks of a common definition of hate speech and the dependence on digital platforms for moderation, which can lead to inconsistent interpretations, abuses, and undue removals, affecting freedom of expression.
It is not up to governmental institutions to define what can be said. Freedom of expression is essential so that the success or failure of ideas is measured at the polls. Brussels tries to criminalize political opposition, curtailing it by all means: despite the sharp growth of the new European right, there is a deliberate quarantine imposed against the Patriots for Europe group, which includes most of these parties, and despite representing already the third-largest European group, they are excluded from posts and influence.
Although the extension of Article 83 has not yet been approved, due to the requirement of unanimity and opposition from some member states, the European Union has circumvented the issue with instruments that do not require unanimity, such as the Digital Services Act and regulations against “disinformation,” which pressure platforms, companies, and citizens.
In Germany, a mega-operation in June 2025 targeted 140 people for online comments, with home searches and arrests, reflecting a fourfold increase in hate speech prosecutions since 2021.
In the United Kingdom, despite being outside the European Union, Keir Starmer follows the same regulatory logic faithfully. Since becoming Prime Minister, he has intensified online repression: over 3,500 arrests in six months for alleged incitement to hatred or offensive content on social networks, with home searches triggered by the expression of opinions on immigration, national identity, or criticism of the government.
In summer 2024, the lack of official information about the identity of a killer who murdered three children in Southport led to thousands of clashes in streets and social media. The result: 1,280 arrests, with the government creating more than 600 prison places to handle the volume, many related only to online posts.
In Spain, Isabel Peralta was sentenced to one year in prison for words at a demonstration; in Portugal, Mário Machado was the first convicted for a tweet. The controversial past of nationalist movements softens the social impact of these convictions, but Europeans realize they could be next. What was once called censorship is now normalized as a “greater good” for inclusion.
In the United States, progressive sectors have considered the European experience as a model to combat disinformation and hate speech online, especially after events like the 2021 Capitol riot. Organizations like the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) Europe have actively participated in the European Commission’s public consultation on the “European Democracy Shield,” highlighting the importance of balancing freedom of expression with the need to fight “disinformation.”
Although the First Amendment of the US Constitution offers broader protection of free speech, the growing influence of American tech companies in Europe, such as Google, Meta, and TikTok, and the implementation of regulations like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), have raised concerns about the extraterritorial application of these laws.
Therefore, it is crucial that Americans remain alert to global digital regulation trends and actively defend freedom of expression, avoiding the adoption of European models, as freedom is lost gradually, slice by slice, through centralized decisions.
