Latest news with #WorldForum
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Trump's June 2025 schedule: Summits, celebrations, and more
June 2025 is slated to be a busy month for President Donald Trump. With important summits and a national celebration on the list, here are the confirmed events on Trump's schedule for next month. Also Read: Thousands sign petition to cancel Trump's birthday parade: Here's why Doubling down as the President's 79th birthday as well as the US Army's 250th anniversary, June 14 is a special day in Trump's calendar. To mark the momentous occasion, a multimillion-dollar parade is being organized in Washington DC- something that Trump wanted to do during his first term in office as well but ultimately canceled due to budget constraints. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks and aircrafts are being deployed as part of the grand celebrations in the capital. 'President Trump will travel to the G7 leaders' summit in Canada from June 15 through the 17th,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a daily press briefing on Thursday (May 22). The summit marks the 50th anniversary of the first G7 Summit. Under Canada's presidency this year, the summit is being held in Kananaskis, Alberta from June 15 to June 17. The official website says, 'From international peace and security to global economic stability and growth, to the digital transition, today's global challenges and opportunities require us to work together to find shared solutions.' Trump's visit comes at a particularly distraught time in US-Canada relations with the President's repeated calls for the country to join the United States of America and become its '51st state." The imposition of heavy tariffs by the US has also been a serious point of contention between the two sides. However, Canada's newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney made a significant visit to the White House soon after his appointment in a meeting that was considered a step in the right direction. Also Read: Bernie Kerik cause of death: Ex-NYPD Commissioner had been unwell, recently hospitalized On April 4, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski announced that Trump would be attending the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague. 'I am pleased to announce that the 2025 NATO Summit will be held at the World Forum in The Hague from 24 to 26 June 2025. We are grateful to the Netherlands for agreeing to host this meeting for the first time,' said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. 'The Netherlands is a founding member of NATO and makes critical contributions to the deterrence and defense of the Alliance. At our Summit, Leaders will make decisions to continue to adapt and strengthen our Alliance for a rapidly changing security environment. Together, we are stronger and safer in NATO.' The announcement came soon after Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement regarding the President's commitment towards the organization and desire to remain an active member of the alliance. Trump has, however, expressed his criticism of the organization in the past by blaming many member states for lack of sufficient defense spending as compared to the advantages they seek. His administration has also clearly signaled a strategic shift from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region. Trump's hopes of seeing the Russia-Ukraine conflict brought to an end in the summit also remain dim since Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has received an official invite to attend yet. In February this year, Trump had secured a historic second state visit to the United Kingdom on special request of King Charles III. The letter was personally delivered by the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. However, no official date has been announced for the visit as of yet.
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - In Berlin, Europe's elite are very nervous there's too much freedom of speech
'A New World Order With European Values.' Emblazoned across banners and signs, those words met the participants at this week's meeting of the World Forum in Berlin. Each year, leaders, executives, journalists and academics gather to address the greatest threats facing humanity. This year, there was little doubt about what they view as the current threat: the resurgence of populism and free speech. In fairness to the Forum, 'a New World Order' likely sounds more ominous for some civil libertarians than intended. While the European Union is a transnational government stretching across 27 nations, the organizers were referring to a shift of values away from the United States to Europe. As one of the few speakers at the forum who was calling for greater protections for free speech, I found it a chilling message. Even putting aside the implications of the New World Order, the idea of building a world on today's European values is chilling for free speech. Free speech is in a free fall in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions — including for having 'toxic ideologies.' The World Forum has a powerful sense of fraternity, even an intimacy, among leaders who see each other as a global elite — a cadre of enlightened minds protecting citizens from their own poor choices and habits. There has long been a push for transnational governing systems, and European figures see an opportunity created by the conflict with President Trump. The European Union is the model for such a Pax Europaea or 'European peace.' The problem is that this vision for a new Holy Roman Empire lacks a Charlamagne. More importantly, it lacks public support. The very notion of a 'New World Order' is chilling to many who oppose the rise of a globalist class with the rise of transnational governance in the European Union and beyond. This year, there is a sense of panic among Europe's elite over the victory of Trump and the Republicans in the U.S., as well as nationalist and populist European movements. For globalists, the late Tip O'Neill's rule that 'all politics is local' is anathema. The European Union is intended to transcend national identities and priorities in favor of an inspired transnational government managed by an expert elite. The message was clear. The new world order would be based on European, not American, values. To rally the faithful to the cause, the organizers called upon two of the patron saints of the global elite: Bill and Hillary Clinton. President Clinton was even given an award as 'leader of the century.' The Clintons were clearly in their element. Speaker after speaker denounced Trump and the rise of what they called 'autocrats' and 'oligarchs.' The irony was crushing. The European Union is based on the oligarchy of a ruling elite. The World Forum even took time to celebrate billionaires from Bill Gates to George Soros for funding 'open societies' and greater transnational powers. The discussions focused on blunting the rise of far-right parties and stemming the flow of 'disinformation' that fosters such dissent. Outside of this rarefied environment, the Orwellian language would border on the humorous: protecting democracy from itself and limiting free speech to foster free speech. Yet, one aspect of the forum was striking and refreshingly open. This year it became clear why transnational governance gravitates toward greater limits on free speech. Of course, all of this must be done in the name of democracy and free speech. There is a coded language that is now in vogue with the anti-free speech community. They never say the word 'censorship.' They prefer 'content moderation.' They do not call for limiting speech. Instead, they call for limiting 'false,' 'hateful' or 'inciteful' speech. As for the rise of opposing parties and figures, they are referred to as movements by 'low-information voters' misled by disinformation. Of course, it is the government that will decide what are acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints. That code was broken recently by Vice President JD Vance, who confronted our European allies in Munich to restore free speech. He stripped away the pretense and called out the censorship. With the rise of populist groups, anti-immigration movements and critics of European governance, there is a palpable challenge to EU authority. In that environment, free speech can be viewed as destabilizing because it spreads dissent and falsehoods about these figures and their agenda. Thus far, 'European peace' has come at the price of silencing many of those voices; achieving the pretense of consensus through coerced silence. Transnational governance requires consent over a wide swath of territory. The means that the control or cooperation of media and social media is essential to maintaining the consent of the governed. That is why free speech is in a tailspin in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions. Yet, it is difficult to get a free people to give up freedom. They have to be very afraid or very angry. One of the speakers was Maria A. Ressa, a journalist and Nobel laureate. I admire Ressa's courage as a journalist but previously criticized for her anti-free speech positions. Ressa has struck out against critics who have denounced her for allegedly antisemitic views. She has warned that the right is using free speech and declaring 'I will say it now: 'The fascists are coming.'' At the forum, Ressa again called for the audience of 'powerful leaders' to prevent lies and dangerous disinformation from spreading worldwide. But the free speech movement has shown a surprising resilience in the last few years. First, Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled its censorship apparatus, restoring free speech to the social media platform. More recently, Mark Zuckerburg announced that Meta would also restore free speech protections on Facebook and other platforms. In a shock to many, young Irish voters have been credited with killing a move to further expand the criminalization of speech to include 'xenophobia' and the 'public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material' from viewpoints barred under the law. Anti-free speech forces are gathering to push back on such trends. Indeed, Hillary Clinton has hardly been subtle about the dangers of free speech to the new world order. After Musk bought Twitter with the intention of restoring free speech protections, Clinton called upon the European Union to use its infamous Digital Services Act to make Musk censor her fellow Americans. She has also suggested arresting those spreading disinformation. The European Union did precisely that by threatening Musk with confiscatory fines and even arrest unless he censored users. When Musk decided to interview Trump in this election, EU censors warned him that they would be watching for any disinformation. For many citizens, European governance does not exactly look like a triumph over 'oligarchs' and 'autocrats.' Indeed, the EU looks pretty oligarchic with its massive bureaucracy guided by a global elite and 'good' billionaires like Soros and Gates. Citizens would be wise to look beyond the catchy themes and consider what Pax Europaea would truly mean to them. We have many shared values with our European allies. However, given the current laws limiting political speech, a 'New World Order Based on European Values' is hardly an inviting prospect for those who believe in robust democratic and free speech values. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
22-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
In Berlin, Europe's elite are very nervous there's too much freedom of speech
'A New World Order With European Values.' Emblazoned across banners and signs, those words met the participants at this week's meeting of the World Forum in Berlin. Each year, leaders, executives, journalists and academics gather to address the greatest threats facing humanity. This year, there was little doubt about what they view as the current threat: the resurgence of populism and free speech. In fairness to the Forum, 'a New World Order' likely sounds more ominous for some civil libertarians than intended. While the European Union is a transnational government stretching across 27 nations, the organizers were referring to a shift of values away from the United States to Europe. As one of the few speakers at the forum who was calling for greater protections for free speech, I found it a chilling message. Even putting aside the implications of the New World Order, the idea of building a world on today's European values is chilling for free speech. Free speech is in a free fall in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions — including for having 'toxic ideologies.' The World Forum has a powerful sense of fraternity, even an intimacy, among leaders who see each other as a global elite — a cadre of enlightened minds protecting citizens from their own poor choices and habits. There has long been a push for transnational governing systems, and European figures see an opportunity created by the conflict with President Trump. The European Union is the model for such a Pax Europaea or 'European peace.' The problem is that this vision for a new Holy Roman Empire lacks a Charlamagne. More importantly, it lacks public support. The very notion of a 'New World Order' is chilling to many who oppose the rise of a globalist class with the rise of transnational governance in the European Union and beyond. This year, there is a sense of panic among Europe's elite over the victory of Trump and the Republicans in the U.S., as well as nationalist and populist European movements. For globalists, the late Tip O'Neill's rule that 'all politics is local' is anathema. The European Union is intended to transcend national identities and priorities in favor of an inspired transnational government managed by an expert elite. The message was clear. The new world order would be based on European, not American, values. To rally the faithful to the cause, the organizers called upon two of the patron saints of the global elite: Bill and Hillary Clinton. President Clinton was even given an award as 'leader of the century.' The Clintons were clearly in their element. Speaker after speaker denounced Trump and the rise of what they called 'autocrats' and 'oligarchs.' The irony was crushing. The European Union is based on the oligarchy of a ruling elite. The World Forum even took time to celebrate billionaires from Bill Gates to George Soros for funding 'open societies' and greater transnational powers. The discussions focused on blunting the rise of far-right parties and stemming the flow of 'disinformation' that fosters such dissent. Outside of this rarefied environment, the Orwellian language would border on the humorous: protecting democracy from itself and limiting free speech to foster free speech. Yet, one aspect of the forum was striking and refreshingly open. This year it became clear why transnational governance gravitates toward greater limits on free speech. Of course, all of this must be done in the name of democracy and free speech. There is a coded language that is now in vogue with the anti-free speech community. They never say the word 'censorship.' They prefer 'content moderation.' They do not call for limiting speech. Instead, they call for limiting 'false,' 'hateful' or 'inciteful' speech. As for the rise of opposing parties and figures, they are referred to as movements by 'low-information voters' misled by disinformation. Of course, it is the government that will decide what are acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints. That code was broken recently by Vice President JD Vance, who confronted our European allies in Munich to restore free speech. He stripped away the pretense and called out the censorship. With the rise of populist groups, anti-immigration movements and critics of European governance, there is a palpable challenge to EU authority. In that environment, free speech can be viewed as destabilizing because it spreads dissent and falsehoods about these figures and their agenda. Thus far, 'European peace' has come at the price of silencing many of those voices; achieving the pretense of consensus through coerced silence. Transnational governance requires consent over a wide swath of territory. The means that the control or cooperation of media and social media is essential to maintaining the consent of the governed. That is why free speech is in a tailspin in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions. Yet, it is difficult to get a free people to give up freedom. They have to be very afraid or very angry. One of the speakers was Maria A. Ressa, a journalist and Nobel laureate. I admire Ressa's courage as a journalist but previously criticized for her anti-free speech positions. Ressa has struck out against critics who have denounced her for allegedly antisemitic views. She has warned that the right is using free speech and declaring 'I will say it now: 'The fascists are coming.'' At the forum, Ressa again called for the audience of 'powerful leaders' to prevent lies and dangerous disinformation from spreading worldwide. But the free speech movement has shown a surprising resilience in the last few years. First, Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled its censorship apparatus, restoring free speech to the social media platform. More recently, Mark Zuckerburg announced that Meta would also restore free speech protections on Facebook and other platforms. In a shock to many, young Irish voters have been credited with killing a move to further expand the criminalization of speech to include 'xenophobia' and the 'public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material' from viewpoints barred under the law. Anti-free speech forces are gathering to push back on such trends. Indeed, Hillary Clinton has hardly been subtle about the dangers of free speech to the new world order. After Musk bought Twitter with the intention of restoring free speech protections, Clinton called upon the European Union to use its infamous Digital Services Act to make Musk censor her fellow Americans. She has also suggested arresting those spreading disinformation. The European Union did precisely that by threatening Musk with confiscatory fines and even arrest unless he censored users. When Musk decided to interview Trump in this election, EU censors warned him that they would be watching for any disinformation. For many citizens, European governance does not exactly look like a triumph over 'oligarchs' and 'autocrats.' Indeed, the EU looks pretty oligarchic with its massive bureaucracy guided by a global elite and 'good' billionaires like Soros and Gates. Citizens would be wise to look beyond the catchy themes and consider what Pax Europaea would truly mean to them. We have many shared values with our European allies. However, given the current laws limiting political speech, a 'New World Order Based on European Values' is hardly an inviting prospect for those who believe in robust democratic and free speech values.
