The Breton Amendment
In the light of recent commendable ambitions of Brussels to curtail speech that is untrue or even harmful I humbly propose to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights of EU.
The public discussion on social media is getting out of hand. People are publishing and sharing anything they please. The algorithms are amplifying content based on user interests, regardless if the messages are true or false, beneficial or harmful, progressive or fascist.
Particularly Elon Musk’s X has not given in to the humble pressures of the European Commission to censor content they might perceive as harmful or false. Mr. Musk has just failed to take serious the serious warning of Commissioner Breton and has behaved quite irresponsibly in the recent discussion with Donald Trump on X.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité? Naïvité!
There is, however, one obstacle that is preventing the full weaponization of the DSA against such enemies of Europe and enemies of progress. And that is the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Written in a time where the rulers were more confident in themselves and in the power of their argument, the Charter is effectively tying the hands of governments when it comes to protecting the citizens from the bad influences of the Internet.
This is how it reads now (problematic part is in bold):
Article 11
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
How can the government protect the citizens from the ills of the internet in general and of Mr. Musk in particular if one of the foundational documents of the Union is saying that public authorities (such as Mr. Breton) should not interfere with receiving and imparting information (such as on Elon Musk’s X)? How can we have a constructive discussion is everyone is free to say anything.
How can Mr. Breton and Ms. Vestager continue to interfere with the operation of social media companies if such a provision stands. How can the DSA be legally weaponized against our enemies with this naive piece of text?
The Breton Amendment
I would be inclined to propose that the whole Article 11 is scrapped. However, this may give an impression that the EU is not a democratic entity based on human rights and the rule of law. Instead I propose a few very minor adjustments so that, when read quickly, on the one hand the EU still appears to be in favor if human rights but on the other it can bring full force of its democratic power against its enemies, both external and internal:
Article 11
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of socially responsible expression. This right shall include freedom to hold correct opinions and to receive and impart true and beneficial information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the independent, depoliticized and in some other ways supportive media shall be respected.
In the honor of Commissioner Breton I propose to call the amendment, informally, the Breton Amendment.
Follow up regulations
It goes without saying that in a democratic society ruled by law it will be a European regulation that would transparently define what is socially responsible, correct, true, independent and supportive. This should not be left to the guesswork of the citizens and authors. Although, when I think of it, that could be a solution as well. It provides an even more flexible tools to weed out the harmful content from the Internet.