German Chancellor Olaf Scholz sharply criticized U.S. Vice President JD Vance on Saturday, rejecting his comments about Europe’s approach to free speech and the far right. Scholz made it clear that Germany and Europe would not accept being told what to do by others.
On Friday, during the first day of the Munich Security Conference, Vance accused European leaders of undermining free speech and condemned German mainstream parties for isolating the far-right party, Alternative for Germany (AfD).
“That is not acceptable, especially between friends and allies. We strongly oppose it,” Scholz stated during the conference, emphasizing the valid reasons for avoiding collaboration with the AfD.
The AfD, an anti-immigration party currently polling at about 20% ahead of the February 23 national election, is largely ostracized by Germany’s major parties. This is due to the country’s sensitivity towards ultranationalist politics stemming from its Nazi history.
“Never again fascism. Never again racism. Never again aggressive war. That is why the vast majority in our country opposes those who glorify or excuse the crimes of National Socialism,” Scholz said, referring to the ideology behind Adolf Hitler’s regime between 1933 and 1945.
Europe’s limits on free speech
On Friday, Vance met with the AfD leader and endorsed the party as a potential political partner, a move Berlin dismissed as unwelcome interference in their election process.
In response to Vance’s broader criticism of Europe’s limits on free speech, which he equated to censorship, Scholz stated, “Modern democracies in Germany and Europe are built on the understanding that radical anti-democratic forces can destroy them.
That’s why we’ve established rules and institutions to protect our democracy from its enemies, not to restrict freedom, but to safeguard it.”
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot also defended Europe’s position on hate speech, saying, “We don’t impose our model on others, and no one can impose theirs on us. Freedom of speech is protected in Europe,” he posted on X from Munich.
The Munich conference was expected to focus largely on potential negotiations to end the Ukraine-Russia war, especially after a recent phone discussion between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
However, Vance barely mentioned Ukraine or Russia in his Friday speech. Instead, he expressed concern over what he described as Europe’s retreat from core values like free speech and criticized Europe’s immigration policies, calling them “out of control.”
Vance’s speech left many attendees in stunned silence, with little applause following his remarks.
Europe’s Draconian Crackdown
The Digital Services Act (DSA), which fully came into effect in February 2024, is an EU-wide regulation targeting online “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech.” It requires social media platforms to remove illegal content, which critics argue amounts to censorship both inside and outside the EU, potentially impacting the speech of U.S. residents as well.
This week, European Parliament members debated how to enforce the controversial regulation. Iratxe García, leader of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, commented,
“In recent months, Elon Musk and his platform X have amplified far-right voices through fake news and hateful messages, supporting figures like Donald Trump and Alice Weidel of the AfD. We’ve also seen Mark Zuckerberg eliminate fact-checking programs on Meta, enabling misinformation. We must ensure our rules are applied effectively and penalize those who violate them.”
Henna Virkkunen, the European Commissioner overseeing DSA enforcement, announced plans to double the enforcement team to 200 staff by the end of 2025. This move highlights the stark contrast between the EU’s stance on online speech and the U.S.’s, where President Trump signed an executive order this week aimed at ending government censorship.
Under the DSA, social media companies face fines of up to 6% of their global revenue if they fail to remove “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “hate speech.” However, the concept of “hate speech” lacks a clear definition under international human rights law. Prohibitions often depend on subjective interpretations rather than objective harm, and what qualifies as illegal varies widely across EU member states.
