Intel / Information Warfare
Monitor information warfare, narrative conflict, propaganda patterns and influence operations through curated intelligence summaries.
CEPS Ideas Lab 2026 - Plenary 1: Freedom of expression – a modern ‘leviathan’?
Summary
The panel discusses the complexities surrounding freedom of expression in Europe, particularly in the context of deepfakes, misinformation, and the evolving global landscape. Experts emphasize the need to distinguish between free speech and hate speech, raising critical questions about when free speech can be legitimately restricted.
Panelists argue for a careful approach to limiting speech, advocating for enforcement of existing laws while also exploring alternative methods such as education and media literacy. They highlight the inadequacies of current hate speech laws and the importance of protecting factual journalism as a foundation for meaningful debate.
The discussion reveals a tension between the need for regulation and the potential for overreach, particularly in the context of online platforms. Experts express concern about the privatization of public discourse and the impact of algorithms on the amplification of harmful content.
Panelists emphasize the importance of ensuring marginalized voices are heard in the digital space, warning against the dangers of excessive censorship. They advocate for a balanced approach that respects international standards while addressing the unique challenges posed by social media.
Perspectives
Discussion on freedom of expression in Europe, focusing on regulation, misinformation, and the role of social media.
Pro-Regulation Advocates
- Advocate for limiting speech in extreme circumstances to protect societal interests
- Emphasize the need for effective enforcement of existing hate speech laws
- Highlight the importance of factual journalism as a foundation for democracy
- Call for education and media literacy as tools to combat misinformation
- Stress the need for clear rules and consistent enforcement in digital spaces
Free Speech Defenders
- Warn against the dangers of over-regulation and censorship
- Argue that excessive restrictions can suppress marginalized voices
- Highlight the importance of maintaining a vibrant public discourse
- Question the effectiveness of broad restrictions on hate speech
- Emphasize the need for user empowerment and transparency in content moderation
Neutral / Shared
- Acknowledge the complexities of defining hate speech across different cultures
- Recognize the role of algorithms in shaping public discourse on social media
- Discuss the need for a balance between freedom of expression and societal safety
Metrics
other
five things we need to do right now
actions proposed to address free speech challenges
These actions are crucial for navigating the complexities of free speech in a changing global landscape.
I would say there's five things we need to do right now
other
day minimus
principle for limiting speech
It underscores the need for necessary restrictions to address social harm.
we need to rediscover that that Latin tag day minimus
other
extreme hate speech
current enforcement issues
It highlights the inadequacy of enforcement against hate speech in Europe.
it's too easy to get away with extreme hate speech these days in Europe
other
Digital Services Act
importance of enforcement
It is crucial for regulating online speech effectively.
the extent to which we're not adequately applying the DSA
other
the richest man on the planet
referring to Elon Musk's influence on media
This highlights the concentration of media power and its implications for free speech.
the richest man on the planet that thinks that his freedom of speech is impeded on
other
one of the largest media platforms
Elon Musk's ownership of X
Ownership of major platforms raises concerns about censorship and bias.
he owns one of the largest media platforms
other
certain things you know that have led to genocide to the Holocaust, we're not allowed to say
legal restrictions in Germany
This illustrates the differing approaches to free speech in various countries.
we're not allowed to say or if you do say them well you can be convicted in court
other
strong protection of even offensive speech remains the best defense of democracy
Nadine's argument on free speech
It emphasizes the importance of protecting diverse viewpoints in a democratic society.
strong protection of even offensive speech remains the best defense of democracy
Key entities
Timeline highlights
00:00–05:00
Deepfakes and misinformation are complicating the landscape of freedom of expression in Europe, raising critical questions about the limits of free and hate speech. A panel of experts is set to discuss the legitimacy of regulating free speech amid global tensions and the importance of preserving human rights.
- Deepfakes and misinformation complicate freedom of expression, raising questions about the boundaries of free and hate speech within Europe. The panel will explore the legitimacy of regulating free speech amid global tensions
- Michael Oflaheti warns that the changing global order threatens the value-based system, emphasizing the need to preserve human rights and past achievements
- International law recognizes freedom of expression as fundamental but not absolute, with historical examples highlighting the dangers of unchecked free speech
- Five actions are proposed to address free speech challenges: call out absolute free speech advocates and critique careless speech limitations, particularly in Europe
- the need to invest in pluralist societies that value diverse voices, ensuring that free speech is reflected in societal practices and policies
05:00–10:00
The discussion emphasizes the need to limit speech only in extreme circumstances while advocating for a careful approach to enforcement. It highlights the inadequacy of current hate speech laws and suggests alternative methods like education to manage extreme speech.
- The speaker advocates for limiting speech only in extreme circumstances, emphasizing the principle of de minimis to ensure restrictions are necessary to address social harm. There is caution against using criminal law to limit speech, as it can lead to excessive restrictions, particularly in defamation cases
- The enforcement of existing hate speech laws is inadequate, highlighting the need for better prosecution and the vigorous application of measures like the Digital Services Act. Alternative methods, such as education and fostering pluralistic debates, should be explored to manage extreme speech instead of relying solely on bans
10:00–15:00
The discussion highlights the distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of the press, emphasizing the need for journalists to operate independently. The enforcement of the Digital Services Act is debated regarding its impact on freedom of expression within the EU.
- Freedom of expression differs from freedom of the press; the former allows journalists to report facts without pressure, while the latter emphasizes their independence to inform the public
- The Digital Services Act is central to the debate on whether EU rules enhance or limit freedom of expression, with ongoing discussions about its enforcement
- Historically, freedom of speech protected critics of power, but today, figures like the richest man and the U.S. President claim their speech is curtailed, which seems absurd
- Elon Musks ownership of a major media platform illustrates the issue of silencing criticism, as users opposing him may face bans or reduced visibility of their tweets
- In Germany, legal restrictions on expressions related to historical atrocities contrast with the U.S., where such limitations are less common
- While enforcement of freedom of expression is established in traditional media, challenges persist online, especially on social media, where rules are inadequately enforced
15:00–20:00
The debate on freedom of expression highlights inconsistencies in enforcement between traditional media and online platforms, particularly regarding hate speech. Cultural differences among EU member states complicate the establishment of common standards, necessitating compromises at the European level.
- The debate around freedom of expression reveals inconsistencies between traditional media and online platforms, particularly in enforcement. For example, certain expressions banned in Germanys traditional media can still be found on Twitter without consequence
- Cultural differences among EU member states complicate the definition of hate speech, necessitating compromises at the European level to establish common standards
- Michael emphasizes the ongoing repression of free expression in traditional media, where journalists face significant threats, highlighting that digital issues should not overshadow these critical concerns
- Nadine argues that even well-intentioned censorship of disinformation can be counterproductive. She advocates for strong protection of offensive speech as essential for democracy, calling for a nuanced approach that recognizes its potential for both harm and good
- Nadine also stresses the importance of international free speech standards endorsed by organizations like the United Nations. Any limitations on free speech must be necessary, effective, and the least restrictive option available
20:00–25:00
The discussion emphasizes the potential harm of well-intentioned censorship on disinformation and hate speech, advocating for evidence-based approaches to assess their effectiveness. It highlights the inadequacy of Germany's overly broad restrictions, which have not reduced right-wing violence and disproportionately suppress marginalized voices.
- Nadine argues that well-intentioned censorship of disinformation and hate speech can often do more harm than good. She emphasizes the need for strong protection of even offensive speech as a defense of democracy
- She highlights the importance of evidence-based approaches to assess whether restrictions on speech are effective or inadvertently cause more harm, particularly in the context of Germanys laws on hate speech
- Nadine points out that overly broad and vague restrictions in Germany have not effectively reduced the rise of right-wing violence. These measures have disproportionately suppressed voices of those who are traditionally discriminated against
- Michael agrees with Nadine, acknowledging the inconsistency in the application of freedom of expression standards in Europe. He stresses that limitations on free speech must adhere to principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality
25:00–30:00
The discussion emphasizes the need for limitations on speech to be contextually relevant, particularly concerning incitement to discrimination or violence. It also highlights the importance of engaging with international standards while addressing online safety for children and the enforcement of regulations like the Digital Services Act.
- Limitations on speech should only occur in the context of incitement to discrimination or violence, which is often overlooked by policymakers. The EU must engage with international standards while crafting regulations on hate speech
- Concerns arise regarding the rush to ban access to platforms for children without considering alternative methods to protect them from harmful content. Various ways exist to ensure childrens safety online that do not involve immediate restrictions
- Excessive restraint on protests, particularly in the context of Gaza, has been a significant issue. Policymakers and police forces in some European countries are not adequately listening to calls for tolerance of unpopular speech
- The distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of amplification is critical. Platforms tend to amplify divisive content while marginalizing accurate information, driven by profit motives that focus on sensationalism
- To ensure tools like the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act reinforce democracy, constant monitoring is necessary. Adjustments should be made if these tools are seen to move in the wrong direction, as current enforcement appears lacking