In Berlin, Europe's elite are very nervous there's too much freedom of speech

"A New World Order With European Values." Emblazoned across banners and signs, those words met the participants at this week's meeting of the World Forum in Berlin. 

Each year, leaders, executives, journalists and academics gather to address the greatest threats facing humanity. This year, there was little doubt about what they view as the current threat: the resurgence of populism and free speech.

In fairness to the Forum, "a New World Order" likely sounds more ominous for some civil libertarians than intended. While the European Union is a transnational government stretching across 27 nations, the organizers were referring to a shift of values away from the United States to Europe.

As one of the few speakers at the forum who was calling for greater protections for free speech, I found it a chilling message. Even putting aside the implications of the New World Order, the idea of building a world on today's European values is chilling for free speech.

Free speech is in a free fall in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions — including for having "toxic ideologies."

The World Forum has a powerful sense of fraternity, even an intimacy, among leaders who see each other as a global elite — a cadre of enlightened minds protecting citizens from their own poor choices and habits.

There has long been a push for transnational governing systems, and European figures see an opportunity created by the conflict with President Trump. The European Union is the model for such a Pax Europaea or "European peace."

The problem is that this vision for a new Holy Roman Empire lacks a Charlamagne. More importantly, it lacks public support.

The very notion of a "New World Order" is chilling to many who oppose the rise of a globalist class with the rise of transnational governance in the European Union and beyond.

This year, there is a sense of panic among Europe's elite over the victory of Trump and the Republicans in the U.S., as well as nationalist and populist European movements.

For globalists, the late Tip O'Neill's rule that "all politics is local" is anathema. The European Union is intended to transcend national identities and priorities in favor of an inspired transnational government managed by an expert elite.

The message was clear. The new world order would be based on European, not American, values. To rally the faithful to the cause, the organizers called upon two of the patron saints of the global elite: Bill and Hillary Clinton. President Clinton was even given an award as "leader of the century."

The Clintons were clearly in their element. Speaker after speaker denounced Trump and the rise of what they called "autocrats" and "oligarchs." The irony was crushing. The European Union is based on the oligarchy of a ruling elite. The World Forum even took time to celebrate billionaires from Bill Gates to George Soros for funding "open societies" and greater transnational powers.

The discussions focused on blunting the rise of far-right parties and stemming the flow of "disinformation" that fosters such dissent.

Outside of this rarefied environment, the Orwellian language would border on the humorous: protecting democracy from itself and limiting free speech to foster free speech.

Yet, one aspect of the forum was striking and refreshingly open. This year it became clear why transnational governance gravitates toward greater limits on free speech. 

Of course, all of this must be done in the name of democracy and free speech.

There is a coded language that is now in vogue with the anti-free speech community. They never say the word "censorship." They prefer "content moderation." They do not call for limiting speech. Instead, they call for limiting "false," "hateful" or "inciteful" speech.

As for the rise of opposing parties and figures, they are referred to as movements by "low-information voters" misled by disinformation. Of course, it is the government that will decide what are acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints.

That code was broken recently by Vice President JD Vance, who confronted our European allies in Munich to restore free speech. He stripped away the pretense and called out the censorship.

With the rise of populist groups, anti-immigration movements and critics of European governance, there is a palpable challenge to EU authority. In that environment, free speech can be viewed as destabilizing because it spreads dissent and falsehoods about these figures and their agenda. Thus far, "European peace" has come at the price of silencing many of those voices; achieving the pretense of consensus through coerced silence.

Transnational governance requires consent over a wide swath of territory. The means that the control or cooperation of media and social media is essential to maintaining the consent of the governed.

That is why free speech is in a tailspin in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions.

Yet, it is difficult to get a free people to give up freedom. They have to be very afraid or very angry. One of the speakers was Maria A. Ressa, a journalist and Nobel laureate. I admire Ressa's courage as a journalist but previously criticized for her anti-free speech positions. Ressa has struck out against critics who have denounced her for allegedly antisemitic views. She has warned that the right is using free speech and declaring "I will say it now: ‘The fascists are coming.'”

At the forum, Ressa again called for the audience of "powerful leaders" to prevent lies and dangerous disinformation from spreading worldwide.

But the free speech movement has shown a surprising resilience in the last few years. First, Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled its censorship apparatus, restoring free speech to the social media platform. More recently, Mark Zuckerburg announced that Meta would also restore free speech protections on Facebook and other platforms.

In a shock to many, young Irish voters have been credited with killing a move to further expand the criminalization of speech to include "xenophobia” and the “public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material” from viewpoints barred under the law.

Anti-free speech forces are gathering to push back on such trends. Indeed, Hillary Clinton has hardly been subtle about the dangers of free speech to the new world order. After Musk bought Twitter with the intention of restoring free speech protections, Clinton called upon the European Union to use its infamous Digital Services Act to make Musk censor her fellow Americans. She has also suggested arresting those spreading disinformation.

The European Union did precisely that by threatening Musk with confiscatory fines and even arrest unless he censored users. When Musk decided to interview Trump in this election, EU censors warned him that they would be watching for any disinformation.

For many citizens, European governance does not exactly look like a triumph over "oligarchs" and "autocrats." Indeed, the EU looks pretty oligarchic with its massive bureaucracy guided by a global elite and "good" billionaires like Soros and Gates.

Citizens would be wise to look beyond the catchy themes and consider what Pax Europaea would truly mean to them. We have many shared values with our European allies. However, given the current laws limiting political speech, a "New World Order Based on European Values" is hardly an inviting prospect for those who believe in robust democratic and free speech values.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”