EU:s ”demokratisköld” väcker nya farhågor om yttrandefriheten | NTD NYHETER

Supporters of the European Democracy Shield say the initiative aims to strengthen information integrity in Europe by countering so-called disinformation and election interference The European Partnership for Democracy warns that the information space is increasingly exposed to foreign manipulation and that large platforms like X are gaining ever greater influence In December the EU Commission fined X about 140 million dollars for violating the Digital Services Act The owner Elon Musk called the punishment politically motivated and an attack on free speech The Irish commissioner Michael McGrath responsible for democracy dismissed the criticism and said the policy is designed to protect not restrict freedom of speech Far from being a tool of censorship it actually by design protects freedom of expression within the European Union and that is fundamentally what our democracy is about: vibrant and robust debate These online monopolists are all based in the US or China The only way to protect our public space is to create our own European digital champions that follow our rules Members of the European Parliament's committee disagree Cypriot member Fydias Panayioto accused the EU of trying to censor online speech Panayiote mentioned platforms run by Musk and Telegram's founder Pavel Durov as examples for increased freedom of speech The parliament member Milan Mazzurek accused the EU Commission of punishing national identity and dissent Mazzurek also accused EU leaders of fining Musk and X because they do not want free speech Other lawmakers expressed similar concerns Adina Portaro legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom International says international human rights law requires that all restrictions on free speech be precise necessary and predictable Adina Portaro a legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom International says that the EU's network of organizations will be able to define what qualifies as an acceptable fact undermining open debate He says that the fact-checking systems have already shown a pattern of errors and selective application Portaro says that deplatforming and damaged reputation happen quickly while correction and the possibility of getting back one's accounts move slowly One stated goal of the democratic shield is to prevent foreign election interference Men Portaro says that the criteria for identifying such influence are often unclear making it possible for authorities to reinterpret domestic dissatisfaction as foreign influence It also warns that governments change security frameworks to suit their agendas and points to a special committee established in the European Parliament to investigate foreign influence from China and Russia The committee began having relationships with so-called anti-gender opportunities after the establishment of the special committee They target public NGOs that advocate for pro-life or family policies and accuse them of exclusivity from civil life Portaro says that Europe now has the option to use language as a risk to prevent and negotiate with bureaucratic systems Or to reuse a free language culture that targets housing to debate reuse and openly confront ideas Daniel Monaghan NTD News