Kennedy Exposes Two Threats to Democracy: Today’s Pro-Censorship Leaders of the DNC and the European Union

by Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D. Special to The Kennedy Beacon

On August 13, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity to discuss two major threats to democracy: the Democratic Party’s attempt to restrict ballot access and election interference from the European Union (EU).

Hannity and Kennedy first discussed Judge Christina Ryba’s decision to exclude him from the ballot in New York on the bogus claim that Kennedy is not a legitimate resident of New York State. Kennedy decried the Democratic Party’s apparent disdain for democracy given the party’s ongoing attempts to keep him off the ballot in New York and throughout the country. “A lot of the policies that are now being espoused by the Democratic Party would have been anathema, for example, to my father, my uncle,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy continued by referring to a letter from Thierry Breton of the EU, ironically posted on X, which threatened Elon Musk’s social media platform, charging Musk and X with potentially violating the European Commission’s Digital Services Act (DSA) over Musk’s then-planned interview of Donald Trump on the platform on August 12. “This is something that is absolutely offensive to our democracy, absolutely offensive to the central value of Western democracy, which is freedom of speech,” Kennedy rightly declared. 

Kennedy then noted that the White House and the Harris campaign remained silent over the election interference and the threat to free speech that the EU’s attempt at silencing Donald Trump represented. 

Big Tech Censorship, the EU, and the Democratic Party

I argued in October of 2022 that Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now X) would represent an important test case for freedom of speech on social media in the U.S. and beyond. In that essay, I also predicted that one of the main obstacles for free speech on X would be the EU’s DSA, as administered by the European Commission (EC). 

Sure enough, as The Record reports, Musk’s X has been threatened with fines of up to 6% of global turnover by the EC for failure to comply with the DSA. And now Breton is attempting to bring down the hammer on X for its failure to comply with DSA imperatives, especially in connection with the interview of Trump and revolts underway in the UK over immigration and immigrant violence. 

Breton’s letter lays out the powers that the EC arrogates to itself to curtail free speech:

As the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users worldwide, of which one third [are] in the EU, that has been designated as a Very Large Online Platform, you have the legal obligation to ensure X's compliance with EU law and in particular the DSA in the EU (emphasis mine).

The doublespeak and gaslighting on Breton’s part are astounding. On the one hand, Breton is ordering X to ensure “freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism,” and on the other, the platform must mitigate (censor) “the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events.” 

Of course, the European Commission will decide what constitutes “harmful content,” and the harmfulness of said content will be based on the EU’s dicta, which align with the interests of the Democratic Party in the U.S. The EC will decide what speech it condones, what freedom of expression is allowed, and what expression will be disallowed. The EC will decide the “relevant events” and thus what speech is permissible and what is not. 

Redoubling its claims to authority over speech on X, Breton reminded Musk of ongoing proceedings against the platform:

As you know, formal proceedings are already ongoing against X under the DSA, notably in areas linked to the dissemination of illegal content and the effectiveness of the measures taken to combat disinformation.

This warning is given in connection to ongoing speech of which Breton and the EC/EU does not sanction, including speech exhibiting “hate and racism” and “debates and interviews in the context of elections,” the treatment of which could have, Breton warns, an impact on proceedings already underway against X: 

As the relevant content is accessible to EU users and being amplified also in our jurisdiction, we cannot exclude potential spillovers in the EU. Therefore, we are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political - or societal - events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections…

l therefore urge you to promptly ensure the effectiveness of your systems and to report measures taken to my team (emphasis mine).

The arrogance of this supra-statist regime apparently knows no bounds. As if the U.S. federal government’s attempts to curtail and control speech were not already draconian enough – for example as described in Kennedy v. Biden – the EC/EU is upping the ante on censorship. These efforts could have dramatic effects on the future of free speech, including speech regarding pandemics, the integrity of elections, and more. 

Thus, we see that the European Commission has no intention of abiding by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech to individuals. No matter the origin of the speech in question, the EC claims the right to regulate it. That neither the White House nor the Harris-Walz campaign have had anything to say about the potential infringements of speech in the U.S. speaks volumes about the party’s values; the Democratic Party is no longer an advocate for free speech, just as Kennedy asserted again on August 15 on X. “VP Harris’s Democratic Party would be unrecognizable to my father and uncle and I cannot reconcile it with my values,” he wrote. “The Democratic Party of RFK and JFK was the party of civil liberties and free speech. VP Harris‘s is the party of censorship, lockdowns, and medical coercion.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has proven time and again that his campaign is not only about his own candidacy for U.S. president. The Kennedy campaign also represents a challenge to the anti-democratic forces that the Democratic Party and its global allies have become. 

Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., is a Former Distinguished Fellow at Hillsdale College and Former Professor of Liberal Studies and Global Studies at New York University. At the 2024 Libertarian Party convention, Rectenwald came in second behind Chase Oliver for the Libertarian nomination for U.S. president.