Скачать или смотреть How Europe Exports Censorship: The EU's Digital Services Act & UK's Online Safety Act

The systemic shift in Western law from policing criminal speech to policing subjectively harmful speech, focusing on the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA).
Key points covered:
1. Legal Framework Shift: Examination of how the DSA and OSA replace the legal standard of imminent lawless action with vague concepts like non-trivial psychological harm and offense.
2. Lowered Prosecution Threshold: Analysis of cases demonstrating the shift from policing crime to policing listener reactions.
3. Global Export of Censorship: How massive financial penalties (up to 6% of global revenue) force non-EU/UK tech platforms to adopt European content moderation standards.
4. Institutionalized Chilling Effect: The impact of these laws on self-censorship in public and academic discourse.
5. Systemic Enforcement Bias: How mechanisms like trusted flaggers disproportionately target non-orthodox political and scientific viewpoints.
Conclusion: The transition from policing crime to policing harm represents a fundamental threat to free expression and the marketplace of ideas.

Analyzes the systemic shift in Western democracies from policing speech based on tangible crime to policing it based on subjective concepts of harm and safety, primarily focusing on the legal, cultural, and economic consequences of the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA).

Main Claim: The implementation of the EU's Digital Services Act and the UK's Online Safety Act represents a fundamental and dangerous departure from traditional Western free speech principles, replacing the high legal standard of imminent lawless action with vague, subjective standards of non-trivial psychological harm and offense, thereby institutionalizing censorship, creating a chilling effect on public and academic debate, and exporting this model of soft totalitarianism globally through massive financial penalties.

Logic:
1. Legal Shift: The video establishes that new European and UK laws (OSA, DSA) criminalize speech based on the listener's reaction (feeling offended, belittled, or experiencing non-trivial psychological harm) rather than the speaker's intent or the likelihood of imminent violence.
2. Lowered Bar for Prosecution: Examples like the yodeling case in Austria and the sermon investigation in Ireland demonstrate that the focus has shifted from policing crime (incitement, fraud) to policing feelings (offense, insult), making prosecution easier and broader.
3. Exportation of Censorship: The OSA and DSA claim extraterritorial jurisdiction, threatening massive fines (up to 6% of global revenue for the DSA) against global tech platforms unless they comply with EU/UK content moderation standards, effectively forcing US companies to adopt European censorship models.
4. Chilling Effect: The legal environment fosters a culture of self-censorship, particularly among heterodox academics and commentators, who fear professional and legal sanctions for questioning orthodox narratives (e.g., on gender or climate), leading to the suppression of legitimate scientific and political debate.
5. Systemic Bias: The enforcement mechanisms, such as the DSA's trusted flaggers, are shown to disproportionately target political speech from conservative or skeptical viewpoints, suggesting the system, while framed as neutral, functions as a tool for political suppression.
6. Conclusion: The transition from policing crime to policing harm fundamentally undermines the marketplace of ideas and the core tenets of free expression, replacing robust debate with enforced consensus under the threat of state-mandated penalties.