Europe has long been viewed as a bastion of democratic values, where freedom of speech plays a central role in the public sphere. The principle that “even unpleasant opinions deserve protection” has historically been considered a cornerstone of democracy on the continent. In recent years, however, this principle is increasingly being called into question, and the practice of enforcement reveals a troubling tendency to narrow the boundaries of what is considered acceptable.
This concern is no longer voiced only by human rights activists or independent journalists. In February 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump and his vice president publicly stated that “freedom of expression in Europe is under threat,” pointing to a growing number of restrictions and criminal proceedings targeting “uncomfortable” or politically sensitive statements. Despite the controversial profile of the speakers, the claim resonated with several European media outlets, which noted a broader trend of redefining the boundaries of public discourse.
Hate speech as a universal tool of control
One of the most contentious mechanisms is the increasingly broad and sometimes excessive application of the term “hate speech.” This concept, enshrined in the laws of most EU countries and the UK, was originally intended as a legal means to combat incitement to hatred based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
In practice, however, the line between protection and censorship is becoming increasingly blurred. This is especially evident in the digital sphere, where social media platforms routinely delete content at the slightest suspicion of “inappropriate language,” often relying not on judicial rulings but on algorithms and user complaints. In some cases, this leads to actual criminal prosecution based on vague or disputed grounds.
Legal paradoxes: from the Bible to abortion and political bans
Of particular concern are cases in which the targets of legal action are traditional religious views or conservative positions that do not call for violence but do not align with dominant ideological frameworks.
In Finland, a member of parliament, Päivi Räsänen, faced criminal charges after posting Bible verses on Twitter that condemned homosexual practices. Although the quotes came from a religious text, authorities deemed them in violation of hate speech laws.
In France, where the ideals of secularism form the basis of national identity, a conservative television channel was fined after one of its presenters stated that abortion is “the leading cause of death in the world.” The statement, though controversial, was ruled to contradict the country’s principles of reproductive health. Such rulings raise pressing questions about the limits of legitimate criticism and where the protection of rights ends and enforced consensus begins.
In Sweden, a university canceled a planned lecture on migration policy because the invited speaker had previously criticized the government’s integration efforts. No criminal charges were filed against the academic, but the event was canceled due to “security concerns” and the possibility of public protests. This decision effectively legitimized self-censorship as a standard in academic settings. If university debate can no longer accommodate criticism of government policy, one must ask: where does genuine intellectual freedom remain?
In Germany, authorities are considering restricting media access for members of the political party Alternative for Germany (AfD), citing the need to combat misinformation and protect constitutional order. While such measures are formally intended to defend democratic institutions, they risk setting a dangerous precedent of the exclusion of a legally elected political force from public discourse, which has already drawn criticism from both liberal and human rights circles.
Freedom only for the agreeable?
It is becoming increasingly clear that the European model of regulating public speech is undergoing a profound transformation. Rather than applying a universal principle of free expression, the system more often reflects a principle of selective tolerance: views that align with the dominant consensus are protected, while others risk being deleted, suspended, discredited, or penalized.
The right not to be offended is more and more frequently placed in direct conflict with the right to speak—particularly when it comes to moral, political, or culturally sensitive issues. This trend places the very idea of pluralism—the foundation of any genuine democracy—at risk.
Europe, which aspires to global leadership in the defense of human rights and civil liberties, is now confronting a paradox at the heart of its normative framework. In its efforts to protect vulnerable groups, governments increasingly restrict the right to express views that are traditional, religious, or simply unpopular.
Freedom of speech is not only about protecting against extremism. It is also about the ability to voice dissent, express controversial or uncomfortable opinions, and engage in meaningful debate. If this principle is lost—even with good intentions—society risks sliding into a phase of democracy without discussion, where procedures remain intact, but freedom becomes a privilege rather than a right.
Comments