Elon Musk is learning that in Europe, defending free speech comes at a steep price. In a recent RealClearMarkets column, Charles Sauer examines the European Union’s decision to fine X $140 million under its Digital Services Act (DSA) — a move that looks far less like consumer protection and far more like ideological enforcement.
“Musk’s good deed was purchasing Twitter, which he renamed X, in order to restore the site to its origins as the internet’s leading free speech zone.”
The fine stems from X’s designation as a “Very Large Online Platform,” a category that subjects companies with more than 45 million monthly users to the EU’s most aggressive rules. One alleged violation centers on X’s blue-check system, which regulators now claim enables “misleading identities” because verification is no longer government-approved.
Sauer warns that this logic should unsettle anyone familiar with American history.
“Some of the most influential works in American history were published anonymously — including Common Sense and the Federalist Papers.”
Anonymous and pseudonymous speech have long been protected under U.S. law. Sauer points to NAACP v. Alabama, where the Supreme Court affirmed that privacy in association is often essential for groups expressing dissenting views.
The EU’s second claim targets X’s advertising transparency, demanding detailed disclosures about how ads are recommended. Sauer dismisses the premise. X is not the only platform available to users, and dissatisfaction is already addressed by competition — not coercion.
“If users have a problem with the ads on X, they can use another platform whose policies better suit them.”
The broader danger lies in the DSA’s sweeping speech provisions. The law bans “illegal content” and “information manipulation” without clearly defining either, instead prohibiting any speech deemed incompatible with EU or member-state law. That ambiguity grants regulators enormous discretion.
The contrast in enforcement is revealing. TikTok avoided punishment the same day X was fined — not by defending speech, but by agreeing to change its design to satisfy regulators.
“If you comply with our rules, you don’t get a fine.”
Most executives would accept that offer. Elon Musk did not.
Sauer notes that Musk has openly challenged the EU’s authority, drawing support from the Trump administration, Vice President JD Vance, and FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson — all of whom have warned that the DSA threatens American companies and American users.
The message is clear: the Digital Services Act is not about transparency or safety. It is about control. And as Sauer argues, the United States should respond accordingly — by pushing back against the EU’s attempt to export censorship under the guise of regulation.
Read more in RealClear Markets by clicking here.
