Introduction. European Beacon of Happiness.

On May 2, 2025, the European Commission issued a press release on World Press Freedom Day, reaffirming its commitment to uphold media freedom and pluralism in the European Union and to promote these principles globally. The newly adopted European Media Freedom Act, which the Commission reports as successfully implemented, appears to be designed to advance these objectives.

As we can see from the timeline provided by the Commission itself, the new regulation is part of a much broader legal framework shaping the European media and digital information space.

This framework encompasses at least three regulations, two directives, two Action Plans, two recommendations, and a Code of Conduct on Disinformation (missing from the Commission’s timeline)—nearly 400 pages of unreadable Eurobureaucratish gobbledygook, which, as a former European Commissioner once put it, “no sane, sensible person” would read.

And don’t be misled by the outwardly harmless label of “recommendations” — for quite some time, European institutions have controlled the means of legislative production in national states, so European recommendations do not merely suggest—they set out norms that are voluntarily mandatory for Union subjects.

Returning to the Commission’s press release, one cannot help but notice the quote from Henna Virkkunen, who graciously agreed to take on the responsibility for safeguarding Europeans’ freedoms, justice, and democracy within the European Commission, and who declared: “We are dedicated to ensuring that Europe remains a beacon for media freedom and pluralism.”

The symbolism embedded in the beacon metaphor is clear and universally understood. It represents guidance, hope, safety, inspiration, and leadership. Thus, it appears that, on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, the European official wanted to highlight that the Union has been, is, and intends to remain a place where the press is the freest in the world—a guiding example for those countries where it is somewhat free, but still not free enough by European standards, and a source of hope and inspiration for those where it is not free at all.

The freest media in the world is, of course, wonderful — but why stop there? A quick Google search for “Europe beacon of” reveals that Europe also is, or at least aspires to become (often by the year 2030 — does anyone know why that particular date?), a beacon of freedom, democracy, free markets and human rights, an international beacon for academic freedom, a beacon of scientific freedom, opportunity, and collaboration, a beacon of hope guiding Europeans toward a future where their communities thrive in the face of climate change, a beacon of collective responsibility shaping a resilient and prosperous continent for generations to come, a beacon of sustainability, a beacon of [digital] innovation and ethics, a beacon for digitization, a beacon of trustworthy AI development, a beacon of social justice, and — beyond any doubt — a beacon of hope and freedom for feminists around the world.

So hush! No criticizing Brussels! — says some third-tier European politician. In truth, the fortunate citizens of Europe gratefully thank the gracious overlords of the EU institutions for their regulations and directives, while those less fortunate look to the Union with awe and admiration.

With the possible exception of the collective power of feminists around the world, I’m sure you’ll agree that perhaps the greatest — and certainly the most prominent — admirers of the European Union are none other than the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and the newly elected President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

The first, inspired by European standards of free press and pluralism, spared no expense, investing his own $44 billion to acquire Twitter. The second, on his very first day, signed an executive order whose essence is best captured in its title—Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. Those wishing to learn more can do so by following this link.

And probably no one — not even feminists around the world — could surpass the warm, deeply admiring words Vice President JD Vance addressed to European partners at the 61st Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025.

Alright, that’s enough — at some point, we have to bring this alternate history to an end.

Without delving into a recounting of the speech, it suffices to note that, likely out of envy that Europeans are attempting to appropriate a metaphor historically employed most often to describe America during the Cold War, the Vice President declared that the greatest threat to Europe, in the view of the new U.S. administration, is neither China nor even neighboring Russia—the greatest threat lies within Europe itself, namely in its approach to free speech and democracy. Criticism was directed at the closest ally, the United Kingdom, for its so-called “buffer zones” law, which criminalizes silent prayer; at Germany for police raids on its citizens over antifeminist online comments; and at the entire European Union—for plans to shut down social networks if they fail to immediately remove so-called “hateful content” during social unrest, and for the annulled elections in Romania with intentions to repeat this in Germany if, God forbid, the “wrong” candidates win.

You can read the full transcript of the Vice President’s speech here, as presented — more or less accurately — by foreignpolicy.com. I say “more or less” because, in reality, [applause] was heard only once, at the very beginning. In all other instances, a journalist truly committed to accuracy would have written [deafening silence].

Throughout history, countries and nations have often been personified as women in art, literature, and political symbolism. Britannia, Germania, Columbia (yes, the one from the Columbia Pictures logo), Italia Turrita, the seductive Marianne of France, and others — all have been depicted as resolute, often armed women, ruling, protecting, triumphing, or leading their nations into battle against their enemies.

To my knowledge, the European Union does not yet have a female personification — but if one had to be chosen (and I’m certain feminists around the world would agree), the ideal model would be none other than the famous climate activist Greta Thunberg, who would sum up the entire wave of outrage, denials, mockery, and other reactions to President Trump’s administration’s criticisms in just three short words: How dare you?

JD Vance struck such a deep nerve in the tender souls of Eurocrats that, in their outrage, they completely overlooked what was, in my view, the most important part of his speech:

[People are] smart. I think this is one of the most important things I’ve learned in my brief time in politics. Contrary to what you might hear a couple mountains over in Davos, the citizens of all of our nations don’t generally think of themselves as educated animals or as interchangeable cogs of a global economy, and it’s hardly surprising that they don’t want to be shuffled about or relentlessly ignored by their leaders.

To sum up, we’re looking at two fundamentally opposing views on the state of free speech in Europe. For some, Europe is a beacon of freedom and democracy; for others, it’s a region rapidly retreating from the principles of free expression. Some see government regulation of social media content as necessary, others as unacceptable. Some are fighting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” while others see this as a violation of constitutionally protected free speech. Ultimately, it seems that some trust their citizens’ intellectual ability to sift through information and vote according to their interests — while others take a far more skeptical view of their own people.

Both sides cannot be right at the same time — which is why this article will attempt to examine just how well-founded the claims made by the European Union and certain individual European leaders really are.

The last time I took a closer look at free speech in the European Union was way back in 2021, when Europe was still being ravaged by the so-called “pandemic containment measures.” That year, I conducted a small investigation on the topic, which I posted on Facebook, and which was later republished by a small Lithuanian news outlet. Ironically, that very outlet — according to its owners, at least — was blocked in Lithuania on September 25, 2024, based on a non-public ruling by the local administrative court.

Four years have passed, so it’s about time to assess what changes have taken place in the field of free speech in Europe during this period.

The main parts of the investigation will focus on the United Kingdom and the European Union, analyzing publicly available legislation, government and EU institutional strategies and reports, and drawing on information published in the press. The ultimate goal of the article is to clarify the meaning of the term “freedom of speech” in the European context and to provide factual material that can be used and referenced by free speech advocates within the European Union and beyond.

I included the United Kingdom in this investigation with some hesitation. On the one hand, the country has been refreshingly reluctant to present itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy for the rest of the world — or at least I haven’t come across such pompous declarations. On the other hand, especially since the rise to power of two-tier Keir, the face of Ingsoc, the situation in the UK is hardly distinguishable from that of continental Europe — and in some respects, it may even be worse.

And the final straw in making the decision was an article by Douglas Murray — the conservative British author, journalist, and political commentator — published in The Spectator on February 18, 2023, which I only came across quite recently.

The author managed to obtain a report by the UK government’s Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU), which revealed that the government was deeply concerned about the spread of far-right extremist sentiment in the country — and that those nefarious far-right extremists were said to include, for instance, many people who supported Brexit.

As if that weren’t enough, according to RICU, there were warning signs if individuals were absorbing information or opinions from “pro-Brexit and center-right commentators.” These included Jacob Rees-Mogg, Melanie Phillips, Rod Liddle — and the article’s author himself, Douglas Murray.

And if that still wasn’t enough, people could apparently be radicalized toward right-wing extremism by reading “a number of books (…) the possession or reading of which could point to severe wrongthink and therefore potential radicalisation.” These included a book on the Rotherham rape gangs, books by Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips — and once again, Douglas Murray, who for some reason seems to have earned RICU’s particular disfavor.

It’s also unsafe to watch certain TV shows, such as Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation, The Thick of It, which satirizes the inner workings of modern British government — particularly the fictional Department of Social Affairs and Citizenship (and honestly, I get it — who would enjoy seeing their very serious and important work mocked like that?) — or Great British Railway Journeys, just as it is unsafe to read certain historical texts.

Wait — what kind of historical texts, exactly? Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf? Karl Marx’s Capital? No, you’re mistaken. According to RICU — or, as Douglas Murray puts it, simply “taxpayer-funded fools” — the truly dangerous ones include Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, and Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, as well as works by Thomas Carlyle and Adam Smith.

“Elsewhere,” Murray continues, “RICU warns that radicalization could occur from books by authors including C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Aldous Huxley, and Joseph Conrad. I kid you not — though it seems that all satire is dead — the list of suspect books also includes 1984 by George Orwell.”

So, to sum up the fruits of labor of His Majesty’s Government officials, as revealed in the article discussed above, one could say — without too much exaggeration — that after leaving the European Union, Britain has, in terms of free speech, somehow managed to edge closer to the Soviet Union, whose 1961 Criminal Code, Article 70, stated:

(…) dissemination, production, or possession of literature [defaming the Soviet governmental and social system] —
shall be punishable by deprivation of freedom for a period of six months to seven years, or by exile for a period of two to five years.

Does anyone still remember how Nigel Farage once hoped for more freedom and democracy in his country after the referendum that shook Europe?

In 2005 I saw the [European Union] constitution that had been drafted by Giscard and others, I saw it rejected by the French in a referendum, I saw it rejected by the Dutch in a referendum and I saw you in these institutions ignore them, bring it back as the Lisbon Treaty and boast you could ram it through without there being referendums,” Farage declared, wishing an end to the European Union project – “It’s a bad project, it isn’t just undemocratic, it’s anti-democratic and it puts in that front row, it gives people power without accountability, people who cannot be held to account by the electorate and that is an unacceptable structure. Indeed there’s an historic battle going on now across the West, in Europe, America and elsewhere. It is globalism against populism and you may loathe populism but I’ll tell you a funny thing — it’s becoming very popular and it has great benefits.

And when a no-name Eurocrat with tightly pursed lips cut off his microphone for waving miniature UK flags, the philosopher Dr. Nida Vasiliauskaitė wrote:

Let us imagine that we know nothing (and accordingly, presume nothing — good or bad) about the EU (except that it’s some kind of union of states), nor about Brexit (other than that it was the decision of one very influential member to leave that union — regardless of reasons, motives, or consequences) — and that we can only form an impression based on Nigel Farage’s speech.

The speakers become symbols: here we have one type — charismatic, articulate, full of vitality, enthusiasm, belief in his cause (or at least the ability to convincingly appear so) — representing Brexit; and another — a tin bureaucrat with empty eyes — embodying the EU.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Farage celebrated too soon. Britain left the Union only nominally — its soul remained on the continent, and the tin bureaucrats with empty eyes were simply replaced by two-tier Keir in sheep’s clothing.

So it’s Britain we’ll be starting with in the next installment.

Stay tuned!