The EU could “act quickly and firmly” against what it deems “unjustified” travel bans imposed by the US on five Europeans involved in fighting online hate and disinformation, an EU official has said.
European Leaders Decry US Move as ‘Intimidation’
Officials from Europe including Emmanuel Macron charged the US administration of “bullying and threats”, following the travel bans were placed on figures that were at the heart of campaigns to enact laws regulating US-based technology firms.
“For far too long, ideologues in Europe have spearheaded coordinated campaigns to coerce American platforms to punish US perspectives they disagree with,” wrote the US secretary of state in a social media post. “This government will no longer tolerate such actions of censorship beyond its borders.”
Broad Criticism Across Europe
Nations including Germany, Spain, and the UK, alongside numerous EU representatives supported the French president in criticizing the decision.
The restrictions were imposed this week on an ex-European commissioner who helped draft the EU’s digital governance law, along with several anti-disinformation campaigners, from Germany and the United Kingdom.
A Deepening Dispute Regarding Governance
This European legislation is seen by US officials as a type of speech restriction, while EU authorities contend the regulations are necessary to combat inflammatory language and disinformation.
This row threatens to become part of a far wider ongoing cultural and political conflict between Washington and Europe.
Other Developments in the News
In other legal developments:
- A US district judge has halted efforts to cut security grants to local governments that do not comply with specific federal immigration rules. The judge ruled the case was “a further instance” of linking federal aid to policy compliance.
- Approval was given for the deployment of 350 national guard members to New Orleans prior to the new year, alongside an active immigration enforcement operation.
- A Pacific Island nation will consent to take in a limited number of individuals from the US in exchange for increased assistance, after concluding a formal agreement with Washington.
Furthermore, a congressional representative has filed a lawsuit to demand the removal of the current president’s name from a prominent cultural institution in Washington DC.
Analysts have also noted that comments regarding foreign petroleum resources reflect a broader belief in some quarters of “resource imperialism”, drawing comparisons with historical international strategies.
