The principle of free speech is enshrined in law across Europe thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The UK and other European countries have recently been attacked by high-profile figures in the US for allegedly clamping down on citizens’ free speech.
US Vice President JD Vance accused the UK of curtailing freedom of expression during a meeting with President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the Oval Office on 27 February.
“We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the UK and also with some of our European allies,” he said. “But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens.”
Vance’s comments to Starmer follow repeated criticism and regurgitated conspiracies by Tesla CEO Elon Musk that the UK is supposedly policing people’s thoughts and sending them to prison for social media posts, following riots over a knife attack that killed three girls last summer.
However, it’s wrong to suggest that the UK is curtailing free speech, because it is clearly enshrined in law.
The Human Rights Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law, granting citizens a whole host of protections related to free speech.
Article 9 says everyone has the right to freedom of thought and belief; Article 10 protects their right to freedom of expression; and Article 11 guarantees the right to protest.
Responding to Vance’s comments in the Oval Office, Starmer defended the UK’s track record on free speech.
“We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very, very long time,” the prime minister said. “Certainly we wouldn’t want to reach across US citizens, and we don’t, and that’s absolutely right.”
“But in relation to free speech in the UK, I’m very proud of our history there,” he added.
Some of the contention may be based on the UK’s anti-hate speech laws, but these are designed to protect citizens from discrimination and incitements to violence.
The Public Disorder Act, for example, makes it an offence for a person to use threatening words that can cause distress, based on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality, as well as language that encourages terrorism.
The more recent Online Safety Act is cited as another potential barrier to free speech, but the government says it’s designed to stop harmful content, threats and misinformation online.
“Platforms will be required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they do arise,” the government says.
“The Act will also protect adult users, ensuring that major platforms will need to be more transparent about which kinds of potentially harmful content they allow, and give people more control over the types of content they want to see,” it continues.
Nevertheless, some civil liberties groups say its measures could stifle freedom of expression.
The Open Rights Group for example said when the law was announced that it poses “a huge threat to freedom of expression” because tech companies will be expected to decide what is and isn’t legal, censoring content before it’s even published.
Experts say the law will have to be tested against the ECHR in court to see if any amendments are needed to make sure it doesn’t infringe the right to freedom of expression.
What other claims has Vance made about Europe’s free speech?
Vance has also targeted the EU for supposedly curtailing free speech.
“I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be, quote, ‘hateful content’,” he said while speaking at the Munich Security Conference in February.
The comments appeared to refer to previous remarks by Thierry Breton, former European commissioner for the internal market, that platforms could be shut down under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) in “extreme cases”. He said this after civil unrest took hold of France following the police killing of teenager Nahel Mezouk in Paris in 2023.
Much like the UK’s Online Safety Act, the European Commission says that the DSA’s main goal “is to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation.”
Article 51 of the DSA sets up a Digital Services Coordinator in a given member state, which can ask judicial authorities to temporarily block access to a service that is causing “serious harm” and “entails a criminal offence involving threat to life or safety of persons”.
If this isn’t technically feasible, the service’s online interface can be blocked altogether, the DSA says.
However, the Digital Services Coordinator needs to have exhausted all other options outlined in the DSA before it can even request that a social media platform be restricted, meaning Vance’s comments that EU officials “intend” to shut down social media during civil unrest is misleading.
Europe ahead of the US for press freedom
For good measure, we can check global rankings on press freedom to gauge how Europe fares when it comes to freedom of speech.
According to Reporters sans frontières’ (RSF) most recent press freedom index, European countries dominate the top of the table.
In fact, the majority of European countries, including the UK and most EU member states, outrank the US for press freedom.
RSF puts the US at 55th place, while the UK comes in at 23rd. Only five of the EU’s 27 members perform worse than the US for press freedom: Bulgaria (59), Cyprus (65), Hungary (67), Malta (73) and Greece (88).
Read the full article here