US Pushes Back Against European Tech Regulation as Free Speech Defense

The Unseen Currents of Online Speech: Sarah Rogers' Battle for an Open Internet

This conversation with Sarah Rogers, the U.S. State Department's Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, reveals a profound tension between the European vision of a regulated internet and the American ideal of unfettered free speech. Rogers argues that the European approach, while often framed as protecting citizens, risks creating a sanitized, less generative online space, ultimately stifling the very dynamism that made the internet a powerful force. The hidden consequence of this regulatory push, she suggests, is a gradual erosion of free expression that could have long-term, detrimental effects on innovation and cultural exchange. This analysis is crucial for policymakers, tech leaders, and anyone concerned about the future of online discourse, offering a strategic advantage by highlighting the downstream impacts of current regulatory trends and advocating for a principled defense of open expression.

The Gentrification of the Internet: When Safety Chokes Innovation

Sarah Rogers' perspective on the internet is rooted in a deep appreciation for its early, chaotic, and generative era. She posits that the internet, in its nascent stages, was a space where identities could be fluid, content outrageous, and expression unfettered by the need for a polished resume. This very chaos, she argues, was the source of its creative power. Her personal history as an anonymous poster on a now-defunct online forum and a prolific Gawker commenter provides a unique lens through which she views the current landscape. She sees a trend towards "gentrification" of the internet -- a sanitization driven by the desire for a more controlled, commerce-friendly environment. This shift, while seemingly benign, carries a significant downstream consequence: the suppression of the very "outrageous" and "frivolous" content that fueled early internet culture and innovation.

Rogers draws a parallel between this digital gentrification and the evolution of online discourse. She recounts her experience as a Gawker commenter, where a certain type of "snark" and "aestheticized cruelty" was prevalent. While she acknowledges that this could be inappropriate when applied to personal lives, she notes how this model, driven by ad revenue and the pursuit of clicks, merged with emerging social justice sensibilities to create a more restrictive online environment. The administration she represents, she explains, is actively pushing back against what they perceive as censorship, particularly from European governments.

"The chaotic aspect of the internet I think was the source of a lot of its generative power and part of its charm for the posters who grew up in that era of which I'm clearly one."

-- Sarah Rogers

This pushback is not merely theoretical. Rogers highlights the EU's fines against platforms like X, arguing that these actions, while ostensibly aimed at curbing harmful content, often impose vague, chilling obligations on risk-averse corporations. This, in turn, can lead to the censorship of legitimate speech, even within the halls of parliament, as companies err on the side of caution to avoid massive fines. The consequence is a platform that, while perhaps cleaner, is less capable of fostering the kind of open, sometimes uncomfortable, dialogue that Rogers believes is essential for a vibrant society.

The Regulatory Gravity of Europe: How Attached Caps Affect Global Speech

A critical insight Rogers offers is the concept of "regulatory gravity," particularly concerning the European Union. She illustrates this with a simple example: the EU regulation requiring water bottle caps to remain attached by a thread. While seemingly a minor environmental measure, it demonstrates the EU's profound influence. Britain, despite not having the same regulation, adopted attached caps due to the EU's pervasive regulatory influence. This principle, Rogers argues, extends to speech regulation.

"The problem is that statutes like the digital services act in europe and the online safety act in britain transpose these existing speech content regulations to a transnational internet often extraterritorially and they impose a lot of first instance censorship obligations on risk averse corporations."

-- Sarah Rogers

The consequence of this "regulatory gravity" is that European speech regulations, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Online Safety Act (OSA), are not confined to Europe. They exert significant influence on global platforms, forcing them to adapt their content moderation policies worldwide. This creates a cascading effect where regulations designed for a specific cultural context are applied globally, potentially clashing with different free speech norms, such as those enshrined in the U.S. First Amendment. Rogers expresses concern that these laws, when transposed to a transnational internet and enforced by risk-averse corporations, can lead to the suppression of political speech and the creation of an environment where even seemingly innocuous content can be deemed violative. This has a delayed but significant consequence: it shapes the global information environment in ways that may not align with American values of free expression.

The Asymmetry of Advocacy: Defending Unpopular Speech as a Strategic Imperative

A recurring theme in Rogers' argument is the importance of defending speech that is unpopular or even offensive, not because of its content, but because of the principle of free expression itself. She confronts accusations that her advocacy is merely a proxy for supporting right-wing parties or big tech companies. Rogers counters that her background is in litigating free speech cases for a range of clients, and her current role is to advocate for the right to speak, regardless of the speaker's ideology.

She highlights instances where European regulators have targeted speech that, under U.S. First Amendment standards, would be protected. The example of a German woman receiving a harsher punishment than a rapist for calling him a "pig" is a stark illustration of what she views as a distorted application of speech laws. Furthermore, she points out the irony that while European governments may censor certain forms of speech, such as "globalized intifada," they might permit similar rhetoric from other ideological groups.

"The reason you should have a bulwark like the first amendment is to hold those instincts at bay. That's the whole point, right? That's why I'm grateful that we have the laws that we do and that's why vague kind of vague regulatory fudges in the hands of regulators who want to suppress particular viewpoints that's why I'm wary of them in Europe too."

-- Sarah Rogers

Rogers argues that this selective application of speech regulations, often driven by political expediency, creates a competitive disadvantage for those who rely on open discourse. By defending the right of all to speak, even those with whom the U.S. government or its allies disagree, the U.S. aims to preserve a global information ecosystem that is more robust and less susceptible to the whims of particular governments or dominant ideologies. The advantage here is long-term: fostering a global environment where diverse ideas can be debated, rather than suppressed, ultimately leading to more resilient societies and economies.

Key Action Items

• Immediate Action (Next Quarter):

  • Document and Disseminate U.S. Free Speech Principles: Proactively publish clear, accessible explanations of the First Amendment and its application to online speech, specifically addressing common European regulatory concerns.
  • Engage European Regulators on Downstream Effects: Initiate dialogue with EU and UK officials to present case studies demonstrating how their current regulations lead to unintended censorship of legitimate speech.
  • Amplify Diverse Voices Defending Open Speech: Support and highlight individuals and organizations (across the political spectrum) who advocate for open online discourse, countering the narrative that this is solely a right-wing issue.

• Medium-Term Investment (6-12 Months):

  • Develop a Global "Regulatory Gravity" Index: Create a framework to analyze and communicate the extraterritorial impact of major regulatory regimes (like the DSA) on global platforms and content.
  • Fund Research on Internet "Gentrification": Commission studies that quantify the impact of increased regulation and sanitization on online innovation, user engagement, and the creation of new cultural or economic trends.
  • Establish a "Free Speech Champions" Network: Foster a coalition of diplomats, academics, and technologists from allied nations committed to upholding open internet principles, providing a platform for coordinated advocacy.

• Long-Term Strategic Investment (12-18 Months+):

  • Promote Alternative Models for Content Moderation: Explore and advocate for platform-led, transparent, and context-aware content moderation strategies that avoid government-mandated censorship, focusing on user empowerment and algorithmic transparency.
  • Invest in Digital Literacy Programs: Support initiatives that equip citizens globally with the critical thinking skills to navigate complex online information environments, reducing reliance on top-down regulatory controls.
  • Champion a "Generative Internet" Framework: Advocate for policies that encourage experimentation and creativity online, recognizing that some "chaos" and "outrageousness" are necessary precursors to innovation and cultural evolution.