The World Economic Forum (WEF), the self-anointed vanguard of the global elite, reconvened late in January in Davos, Switzerland. The agenda this year looked at the increasingly thorny question of free speech. The rhetoric soared to new heights after German chancellor Olaf Scholz said during a panel discussion, “Freedom of expression has its limits, especially when it’s right-wing.”
Scholz took a jab at the role of X (previously Twitter) in amplifying some controversial voices. His remark was a direct shot at Elon Musk, the self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist and owner of X, who has become a lightning rod for unwinding content moderation policies.
Scholz’s comment attracted intense blowback from free speech advocates, who contend that so-called anti-extremism rhetoric like his paves the way to censorship. In Germany, whose already stringent hate speech laws include the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG), this position is viewed as an escalation of efforts to quell dissent. His statement is a perfect example of Europe’s hardwiring of orthodoxy on speech.
Under Scholz’s watch, Germany has broadened the scope of the NetzDG, a 2017 law that forces social media platforms to take down “illegal” content within 24 hours or face heavy fines. Officially styled as an instrument of combating hate speech, NetzDG has nonetheless strangled public discourse on migration, crime, and cultural integration.
Germany’s experience with mass migration highlights the muting effects of censorship. Following a 2015 migrant crisis, violent crime spiked, including some high-profile sexual assaults. But media reporting is still filtered to avoid charges of xenophobia. Sensible citizens expressing legitimate (if unpopular) concerns become extremist or are prosecuted under speech laws.
All of this is representative of a wider worry among European leaders about what they see as a resurgence in far-right ideologies spreading on social media, which is tantamount to a group of conservative factions and voices that would otherwise challenge the often devastating consequences of the existing political policies across the continent.
Similar patterns emerge elsewhere in Europe. France’s Avia Law seeks to remove online content considered “hateful” or damaging, but opponents say the definitions are so wide that they trap political critics as well as ordinary citizens. The E.U.’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which went into effect in 2024, solidified this trend by requiring strong content moderation throughout the continent and threatening fines of up to 6 percent of a platform’s worldwide revenue if it fails to comply.
Scholz’s comments echo a continuing attack across Europe against freedom of expression. All over the continent, countries have ratcheted up censorship laws dressed as fighting “misinformation” and “extremism,” effectively silencing debate on topics like migration, crime, and government overreach. The United States has become the counterexample, ushering in renewed legal protections for free speech in the digital age — courtesy of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning censorship by social media companies.
As the Davos elite comes together under the slogan of “rebuilding trust,” critics charge that the forum is less a site of genuine collaboration than of power consolidation. The WEF’s avowed influence over global tech regulation has raised serious questions about the sovereignty rights of countries globally.
Musk and the Global Free Speech Renaissance
In the face of Europe’s crackdown, Mr. Musk’s overhaul of the social media platform, now called X, has become a rallying cry for free speech advocates. He has restored previously deplatformed accounts, limited censorship measures, and taken a hands-off approach to content moderation. His flouting of European regulators has drawn intense scrutiny. X’s space for open conversation appeals worldwide. In countries such as India and Brazil, where government censorship is widespread, X has emerged as a critical venue for political discourse.
Trump’s Executive Order: A Beacon of Free Speech
Unlike Europe’s trajectory, which increasingly is heading in the opposite direction, the United States has entered a new golden age of free expression. This month, President Trump signed an executive order banning political censorship by social media companies. The order expands on previous moves to rein in Big Tech’s power, such as rolling back Section 230 protections for platforms that act like publishers.
Trump’s executive order highlights a basic principle: free speech is a non-negotiable in a constitutional republic. This directive not only protects Americans from the silencing tactics of Silicon Valley, but also sends a strong signal to our allies and adversaries alike. Here’s the key part: platforms that operate within the U.S. must — effective immediately — abide by strict standards of neutrality that empower users to participate in unencumbered debate.
This policy change has put the U.S. at odds with global institutions such as the WEF, which pushes for centralized content moderation. Critics of the WEF say its vision of “harmonized” regulations is a euphemism for global censorship. In standing up to these pressures, the U.S. sets a model for countries confronting similar pressures everywhere from Canada to Australia.
The WEF’s True Agenda: Control Disguised as Collaboration
At this year’s Davos summit, the WEF announced initiatives to fight “misinformation” via A.I.-driven moderation tools. Designed in collaboration with Big Tech juggernauts, these tools purport to encourage accuracy but have come under fire for lending voice and prominence to establishment narratives while silencing dissent.
The implications are dire. Such framing of censorship as a protection against societal harm is an attempt by the WEF to normalize the loss of individual liberties. Its demand for global standards on speech threatens to override national sovereignty, leaving democracies at the mercies of unelected technocrats.
The WEF — founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab — portrays itself as a meeting place to discuss global challenges. But its critics argue that the group places elite interests above democratic ideals. Schwab has publicly bragged about the WEF’s ability to “penetrate” national cabinets, pointing to figures such as Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau as graduates of its Young Global Leaders program.
Just before the global pandemic was declared in 2020, WEF members were strategizing for the “Great Reset,” a progressive plan to reset the global economy. As a direct contradiction to traditional capitalism, the Davos group stated that the world should embrace socialistic policies, including higher taxation, more regulation, and tens of thousands of government-funded green energy projects and permanent global pandemic treaties.
The Global Stakes of Free Speech
The free speech battle is not simply a policy debate; it is a battle for the soul of democratic — world democratic — governance. Europe’s slide into censorship is a cautionary tale, showing just how easy it is for governments to suppress dissent in the name of public safety. Meanwhile, the U.S. — with Trump at the helm and Musk at the wheel of X — has a different template, where the “marketplace of ideas” is a founding principle of the collective good.
From their dais, the Davos elite preach the policies they believe should be enacted by billions of citizens across the globe — but can they smother discourse, or will the critical tide of culture overcome? For the moment, platforms like X and daring policy moves in the U.S. offer a flicker of hope. But the battle — both legal and ideological — continues, and its resolution will shape the future of freedom in the digital age.
Pxhere.
Jesus Christ is King
