I respect that many of my friends are strictly opposed to any restriction on free speech. However, I personally do not share that position. For example, I have not the slightest problem with bans on the display of genitalia in public spaces. I understand that we should protect children from material that could harm them psychologically (that challenges their gender identity, for example). I can accept a ban on calls for violence if there is a risk that some nutter might take it seriously. I am a supporter of banning the public promotion of Islam. And I can understand that if our government wants to be at war, it will enforce wartime censorship. That’s just part of it.
But all of these restrictions on speech have something in common. They are publicly known, they are defined in some way, everybody knows about them, and ideally there has been a public debate about whether any particular restriction should be enforced. After all, there is a debate going on in the Czech Republic right now about whether information that supports the view that the government of Petr Fiala is incompetent, corrupt or both should be tolerated in the public space. There are clear positions in that debate and the stronger one will decide. That is part of life.
But now something else has come to light. Namely, that the European Commission is pushing for secret restrictions on freedom of speech. It simply agrees quietly with the operator of a platform to delete certain information or certain opinions. They will keep it from the public. We do not know what opinions or information and we do not know why. This is no longer in the nature of protecting the population, protecting the establishment or any other interest. This is pure conspiracy against democratic institutions. Those who are capable of enforcing secret censorship are also capable of vote rigging. Which is not hyperbole. The radical hard core supporters of liberal democracy consider it morally right to rig electoral votes and sanction the murder of political opponents.