"Free Speech" is NOT "Free Spin"

In a stark and confrontational speech in Munich, Vice President Vance reprimanded the European Union and its member states for what he sees as a growing rift in shared values—particularly freedom of speech and how to protect it—between the U.S. and Europe.

The irony? Vance has a point, but his own words highlight the widening gap between Europe and the new America when it comes to free speech. The version championed by Trump, Vance, and Musk strays far from the legacy of Justice Oliver Holmes, John Stuart Mill, and even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Yes, the First Amendment guarantees protection from government interference in free speech. But U.S. Supreme Court history has never suggested that this right is limitless. Holmes’s classic example—that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater should be prohibited—reflects Mill’s belief that free speech ends where imminent harm begins. Voltaire, too, drew the line at social order and public peace. Even Scalia, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, clarified that acts like burning the American flag or a wooden cross are protected only when part of public political protest.

For over a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has linked freedom of expression to the pursuit of truth, rooted in Mill’s optimism that open debate would eventually expose lies. But if free speech is meant to help society inch closer to truth, it’s not just about those who speak—it's also about those who listen, with no interference or hidden agendas.

Europe has asked itself a simple question: can algorithm-driven content selection and the echo chambers of online platforms really ensure free speech and open listening? Does pushing specific stories—true or false—to selected audiences create a fair and neutral information space? And does the fabrication, manipulation, and funding of fake news and hate speech really lead to the open dialogue Mill and Popper envisioned?

Free speech is not free spin. Manipulation isn’t protected expression, especially when algorithmic profiling shapes what we see online. Not everyone sees the same content. Not everyone knows what others see—or why certain posts land in their feed. And let’s not forget that many seemingly authentic online voices are actually paid propaganda, amplified by armies of micro-influencers cashing in on views.

In Europe, protecting free speech means shielding it from disinformation. The right to inform and be informed also means the right not to be misled online. A neutral, or at least transparent, digital environment is essential—that’s the goal of the Digital Services Act, which has placed Elon Musk’s X under scrutiny.

Should we expect support for such regulations from those who ride algorithmic manipulation, hate speech, and online spin to electoral victory? Hardly.

But spare us the lectures on free speech. Vice President Vance said that if we fear opinions, we can’t ensure security. Our answer? If the global alt-right and white supremacist movements truly believed in their ideas, they wouldn’t need hate speech, disinformation, and algorithmic manipulation to win elections.

Europe’s shared values are grounded in the rule of law—and we’re not backing down.