U.S. Plans to Promote a Declaration on Free Speech at the U.N. General Assembly

The Donald Trump administration plans to use the United Nations General Assembly in September to promote an international declaration on freedom of speech, Politico reports. The document is aimed in part at European rules governing online platforms, which Washington regards as a threat to free expression.

American diplomats are already circulating the draft among other countries. The United States hopes that heads of government will sign the declaration on the sidelines of the General Assembly’s annual session.

The document criticizes “new laws” and “regulatory frameworks” that its authors believe could restrict freedom of speech around the world, including in “historically democratic countries.”

Participants are asked to recognize that punishing false statements labeled as “disinformation,” “misinformation” or “hate speech” may violate freedom of expression unless such publications directly incite violence.

“We prepared the joint statement to promote transparency and build consensus. It is intended as an expression of goodwill and shared values, as well as a source of guidance for American communications companies complying with foreign laws,” US Deputy Secretary of State Sarah Rogers said.

She emphasized that Washington was not seeking the outright repeal of the EU’s Digital Services Act, the principal instrument governing online platforms in Europe.

European lawmakers, however, described the American initiative as “a thinly veiled attack on the European Union’s regulation of online platforms.”

According to Politico’s sources, EU countries may seek to alter the declaration’s language during negotiations. Brussels wants to prevent the emergence of a document that could later be used against European rules. At the same time, refusing to sign a declaration defending freedom of speech could provoke a backlash of its own.

The draft also limits the ability of authorities to require online companies to intervene actively in user-generated content. Governments would be expected to “avoid imposing obligations on service providers that result in the excessive removal or restriction of protected speech through legal or regulatory pressure.”

Signatories are also asked to reject requirements that platforms “proactively moderate content” involving certain categories of speech.

The authors identify political and religious discourse, discussion of electoral procedures—including vote-counting systems—and scientific, academic and intellectual debate as protected subjects. The same category includes alternative theories in public health and “statistically, biologically or empirically substantiated facts,” even when official bodies dispute them or consider them politically inconvenient.