The people of the United Kingdom and the countries of the European Union manifestly do not have greater free speech rights than Americans. It’s not even close.
Europeans argue otherwise by pointing to findings such as those from the World Press Freedom Index. But dig a little deeper, and you will see that the methodology of this index and others like it relies solely on journalists to assess the sense of freedom. That includes the freedom to report and from government intimidation/social media unpleasantness. It thus grants greatly excessive weight to American journalists’ penchant for self-importance. Too many journalists also revel in presenting President Donald Trump‘s taunts as mortal threats instead of as admittedly unseemly, unpresidential attempts to bully the media. Still, measured by law and action, it is patently obvious that the United States has freer speech than that of European states.
Although the “hate speech” versus free speech matter is more topical, let’s start with defamation law. After all, any objective contrast of U.S. and European defamation laws offers the plainest annihilation of the claim that Europe has freer speech than the U.S.
In France, expansive defamation laws protect the president on down from insult or offense. This chills speech while deterring effective scrutiny of corruption and other matters of public interest. A similar situation exists in the U.K. Media investigations into the corruption surrounding the 2022 Qatar World Cup and the activities of corrupt Russian oligarchs were deterred and obstructed by lawsuits brought by wealthy interests. I have written stories for the Washington Examiner that would almost certainly have led to frivolous lawsuits in the U.K. But because U.S. defamation law prioritizes the public interest in the truth over the privacy of public figures, America is far better at holding powerful interests accountable. Supporters of the president should remember this the next time Trump rants about suing someone for defaming him.
What about hate speech?
Well, let’s use the most prominent hater of this American moment. Were he in Europe, the neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes would be in prison for saying just 1% of what he has said. European laws from the U.K. to France to Italy to Germany to the supposed democratic utopia of Scandinavia to Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Hungary all ban speech that is deemed likely (intent does not matter) to stir up racial, ethnic, or religious hatred, or celebrate Nazism. These laws extend to insulting rhetoric online. Take this week’s example of Joey Barton.
A notoriously hot-tempered former English professional soccer player, Barton received a suspended prison sentence after comparing two soccer commentators to a notorious serial killer couple. It was a joke. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke, nonetheless. But that joke means he will go to prison if he commits any other offense in the next 18 months.
Other examples abound. Banning Korans is a cardinal offense in Denmark. To the unfortunate glee of CBS’s 60 Minutes, Germany revels in crackdowns against online trolls. French President Emmanuel Macron took action only this month to expand the government’s ability to restrict “false” online speech. There is also a fetish by the European political and judicial establishment to prioritize the aggressive enforcement of hate speech laws. Take the U.K. judge who issued a 31-month prison sentence over an X post. Does the good judge adopt this harsh stance toward all crimes?
Not quite. As I noted in October 2024, the same judge presided over a trial involving a man who possessed “1,000 images and videos of child pornography that he had accrued over a 10-year period.” More than 200 of these images were what English law defines as category A images, or images involving children, which include “penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal or sadism.” The sentence in that case? A suspended custodial sentence, which allowed the offender to avoid prison.
In contrast, the First Amendment restricts speech only of a kind that is both intended and likely to lead to imminent lawless action. It prioritizes the protection of even highly offensive speech to provide space for robust debate on matters of public import. The Founding Fathers and successive Supreme Courts have recognized that individual freedom and social dialogue are the best guarantors of personal and societal happiness. And the best guardrails against violent extremism.
NSS EMPHASIZES TRUMP’S ‘AMERICA FIRST’ PRIORITIZATION OF US’S BACKYARD
Put simply, anyone who says Europe has freer speech than the U.S. is either lying or delusional. Notwithstanding the authoritarian whims of some, the U.S. First Amendment and associated federal case law remain the gold standard of free speech.
Be grateful.
