In an era where social media and online platforms shape public discourse more than traditional media, the issue of freedom of speech has become one of the most sensitive political and social debates of our time. The European Union has responded by adopting the Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024. Its aim is to protect users from illegal content, disinformation, and systemic risks associated with the dominance of large digital platforms. However, in the Czech Republic, the DSA has immediately sparked heated debates. For some, it represents a necessary tool to defend the democratic space against chaos, manipulation, and hybrid threats. For others, it is a symbol of increasing digital censorship and a dangerous concentration of power over public discourse.

The DSA introduces a comprehensive system of obligations for online platforms and providers of digital services. All platforms must allow for the easy reporting of illegal content, transparently explain the deletion of posts, and offer users the possibility to appeal. However, the strictest rules apply to so-called "very large online platforms," such as companies like Meta, Google, TikTok, or X, which have more than 45 million users in the European Union. These companies must regularly assess systemic risks associated with the operation of their algorithms, analyze the spread of disinformation, the impact on elections, and the mental health of young people, and actively take measures to mitigate these risks. The European Commission has also been granted the power to impose fines of up to six percent of a company's global turnover, making the DSA one of the strictest regulatory tools ever created by the EU for technology giants.

In theory, the DSA strengthens the rights of European users and brings greater accountability to digital platforms. However, the reality in the Czech Republic is much more complex. Although the DSA is a directly applicable European regulation, the Czech Republic has consistently lagged behind in its institutional implementation. In May 2025, the European Commission sued the Czech Republic, along with several other countries, before the Court of Justice of the European Union for the insufficient empowerment of the national coordinator for digital services and the lack of clearly defined sanctions. The Czech law on the digital economy, which is intended to complete the implementation of the DSA in the Czech Republic, is stuck in the legislative process and creates a legal vacuum. The result is a paradoxical situation: Czech users theoretically have new European rights, but in practice, they often lack effective protection against arbitrary decisions by platforms and a clear institution to which they can turn.

This is where the core of the debate lies. Proponents of the DSA argue that digital platforms are no longer neutral technological tools, but powerful actors capable of influencing public opinion, election results, and even national security. In a time of Russian propaganda, election manipulation, and pandemic disinformation, they argue that it is not possible to leave algorithms without any accountability. Smaller countries, like the Czech Republic, are particularly vulnerable to information operations. According to this logic, the DSA does not represent censorship, because it does not define a single "correct truth," but rather creates a framework of transparency and accountability for platforms that today control the digital public space.

Critics argue that the line between protecting society and restricting freedom of expression is extremely thin. They fear that, under pressure from high fines and political expectations, platforms will be more likely to proactively remove content, even if it is not clearly illegal. During debates in the Czech Parliament about the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA), concerns were raised about "rapid response" mechanisms during crisis periods or elections, where platforms might be pressured to remove content deemed harmful without sufficient public oversight. History shows that the definition of disinformation or harmful content can change depending on the political climate. An opinion that is considered a legitimate part of public debate today may be labeled as risky or socially dangerous tomorrow. The DSA further intensifies this pressure, as it requires platforms to actively respond to illegal content defined by national laws. Large technology companies often choose the safest option: to proactively remove content rather than risk a legal dispute or a fine. This creates what is known as a "chilling effect" on freedom of expression. People may begin to self-censor out of fear that their posts will be deleted, their accounts restricted, or that they will be publicly labeled as problematic. This gradually erodes the willingness to engage in open and contentious debates, which are essential for democracy. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore the other side of the problem. A digital space without rules can easily slide into manipulation, information chaos, and the spread of extremist content. Social media algorithms are designed to maximize attention and emotions, which often favors polarizing and radical content. Therefore, a complete absence of regulation would not mean greater freedom, but rather a strengthening of the most powerful technology players, who already decide what users see and what remains hidden. The real solution likely lies neither in completely rejecting regulation nor in blindly accepting increasingly intrusive interventions in the digital space. The Czech Republic will need a strong and truly independent coordinator for digital services, clear rules for determining illegal content, greater transparency of algorithms, and broader access to platform data for researchers. It is also necessary to strengthen media literacy and the ability of society to critically evaluate information, rather than having the state or technology companies take on the role of arbiters of truth. Freedom of speech has never been absolute. Every democratic society seeks a balance between protecting the individual and protecting the public space. In the digital age, however, this boundary is much more fragile than before, because public debate has moved to platforms controlled by a few global corporations. The DSA represents an ambitious attempt to regulate this new reality, but it also raises a fundamental question: can the internet be controlled without undermining the very essence of a free society? This is the greatest challenge for the Czech Republic and for all of Europe: to find a balance between defending democracy and preserving space for free, open, and sometimes uncomfortable opinions, without which democracy cannot exist. Prokop Stach