Posted on 03/10/2026 5:34:18 AM PDT by MtnClimber
According to a 160-page interim staff report released on Feb. 3, 2026, nonpublic documents produced to the House Judiciary Committee under subpoena reveal that the European Commission successfully pressured social media platforms to change their global content moderation rules, directly harming American online speech in the U.S. The report suggests that the European Commission has been working for a decade to censor speech.
The European Commission says platforms have already changed their systems and interfaces under the DSA. The law requires easier reporting of illegal content, priority handling for “trusted flaggers,” and statements of reasons for moderation decisions, as well as broader risk-management obligations for very large platforms. These obligations go beyond obviously illegal content and extend into recommender systems; terms and conditions; and “systemic risks” tied to civic discourse, elections, and public security. The Commission has used that authority to investigate X’s recommender systems and Grok; to press TikTok for information about elections, media pluralism, and civic discourse; and to pursue Meta over notice-and-appeal mechanisms and researcher access.
The House Judiciary Committee’s focus sharpened in August 2024 after then–E.U. commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X with regulatory retaliation under the Digital Services Act for hosting a live interview with President Trump ahead of the 2024 election. From there, the committee subpoenaed ten major tech companies. It later sought records from outside groups, including Access Now and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and also requested documents from Stanford after discovering a 2025 event involving foreign regulators and censorship coordination. The committee has received tens of thousands of pages of nonpublic platform records and regulator communications.
The report’s appendix lays out an extensive exhibit trail divided into Internal Platform Exhibits, External Platform Exhibits, E.U. Internet Forum Exhibits, Hate Speech Code Exhibits, and Disinformation Code Exhibits.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
And the European Union calls conservatives “radicals”.
EU is reverting to the mean; free speech has never been the norm in the world. America was an exception—still can be, but we’re going to have to tell the rest of the world to [expletive deleted] off, and retain our inalienable rights granted by our Creator.
If you want to run a message board like this one and others which has limited size/reach. Fine. You can ban and censor. If you're running a huge social media company? Nope! They no more get to ban or censor than the power company gets to refuse you service because they don't like your politics. Too damn bad for the power company. They have to sell you electricity just like they do everybody else.
We cannot allow authoritarian Yurps to EVER determine what Americans can say in America on American platforms. No way.
IMHO, the EU is not (US) our friend.
Europe needs some of what Iran is getting.
“no censorship allowed” except where it is?
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf
Article 20, clause 2 is why the UK censors/punishes people.
The US is a state party to the Covenant too. What is being done in the UK could happen here.
Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley could be punished under clause 1.
I think that's a good question for President Trump. He has a way with words.
So you want the government to decide what “huge” is and who can control a private company.
No thanks.
I don’t see UK using Article 20, clause 2 to punish muslims for antisemitism or hatred of Christians. I guess some religions are more equal than others.
“Big Tech need to be regulated like utilities”
The ISPs are utilities like AT&T was in the 1970s. AT&T didn’t care what I said, nor could it practically care.
Meta and X, if they choose to rely on free creative content, have to go through some effort to monitor it. The Fourth Reich will insist if they wish to get revenue from organizations in the Fourth Reich.
What Meta & X might do is to have people they trust view each new item. After say 200 trusted person views without objection, the item might get released to all that have requested the type of content they’ve requested.
“Europe needs some of what Iran is getting.”
All Europe needs is to see its petrol pumps run dry.
Hey, Brussels... 🖕🏻
It was called “Net Neutrality”.
The plans were all in, FB was going to run it, the switch was ready to pull.
Trump’s 2016 election killed it.
There’s a difference between a small or private club and a public utility. Private clubs may exclude. Public utilities may not.
The one thing we must not allow is for foreign (censorious) governments to set the terms under which Americans can speak in America. We must actively forbid large platforms from complying with EU regulations. They may do that in the EU. They must not set the rules for everywhere else - and we need to “help” the social media companies understand that the EU will not set the rules for everybody.
If you want to run a private message board....sure. You should be able to exclude whomever you want and ban whatever content you want the same way you can if its your home or if its a private club.
If you’re running a social media company, you should not be able to exclude or censor in the same way that a utility cannot deny service to someone.
Wendi Strauch Mahoney condones censorship
We need a new containment strategy - this time against the marxists of Western Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.