In an era when social networks and online platforms shape public debate more than traditional media, the issue of freedom of speech is becoming 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, to protect users from illegal content, misinformation and systemic risks associated with the dominance of large digital platforms. In the Czech environment, however, the DSA immediately sparked fierce controversy. For some, it is a necessary tool for defending democratic space against chaos, manipulation and hybrid threats, while for others it is a symbol of advancing digital censorship and the dangerous concentration of power over public debate.

The DSA is introducing a comprehensive system of obligations for online platforms and digital service providers. All platforms must make it easy to report illegal content, transparently explain the deletion of posts and offer users the possibility of appeal. However, the toughest rules apply to the so-called very large online platforms - companies such as Meta, Google, TikTok or X, which have more than 45 million users in the European Union. These companies must regularly assess the systemic risks associated with the operation of their algorithms, analyse the spread of misinformation, the impact on voting or the mental health of minors, and proactively take measures to mitigate these risks. The European Commission has also been given the power to impose fines of up to six per cent of a company's global turnover, making the DSA one of the toughest regulatory tools the EU has ever created against tech giants.

On paper, the DSA strengthens the rights of European users and brings greater accountability to digital platforms. But the Czech reality is much more complicated. Although the DSA is a directly applicable European regulation, the Czech Republic has long lagged behind in its institutional implementation. In May 2025, the European Commission took the Czech Republic, along with several other states, to the EU Court of Justice over the lack of empowerment of the national digital services coordinator and the absence of clearly defined sanctions. The Czech Digital Economy Act, which is supposed to complete the functioning of the DSA domestically, is dragging through the legislative process and creating a legal vacuum. The result is a paradoxical situation: Czech users have new European rights in theory, but in practice they often have no effective protection against arbitrary decisions by platforms and no clear institution to turn to.

It is here that the biggest controversy of the whole debate opens up. Proponents of DSA point out that digital platforms have long since ceased to be neutral technological tools, but powerful actors capable of influencing public opinion, electoral outcomes and national security. In an era of Russian propaganda, manipulation around elections or pandemic disinformation, they argue, it is impossible to leave algorithms without any accountability. Moreover, smaller states like the Czech Republic are particularly vulnerable to information operations. According to this logic, DSA does not constitute censorship because it does not determine the only „right truth“, but it creates a framework of transparency and accountability for the platforms that dominate the digital public space today.

However, critics argue that the line between protecting society and restricting freedom of expression is extremely thin. They fear that, under pressure of high fines and political expectations, platforms will prefer to delete content as a precautionary measure, even if it is not clearly illegal. In the Czech Chamber of Deputies, during debates on the implementation of the DSA, concerns were raised about „rapid response“ mechanisms during periods of crisis or elections, when platforms may be pushed to remove allegedly harmful content without sufficient public scrutiny. Yet history shows that the definition of disinformation or harmful content can change according to the political climate. An opinion that is considered a legitimate part of public debate today may be labelled risky or socially dangerous tomorrow.

The DSA adds to this pressure by requiring platforms to actively respond to illegal content as defined by national laws. Large tech companies therefore often choose the safest option: they remove content as a precaution rather than risk legal action or fines. This creates a so-called chilling effect on freedom of expression. People may start censoring themselves for fear that their post will be deleted, their account restricted or publicly labelled as problematic. The willingness to engage in open and confrontational debate, which is essential for democracy, gradually disappears in society.

But at the same time, the other side of the problem cannot be ignored. A digital space without rules can easily slide into manipulation, information chaos and the spread of extremist content. Social media algorithms are designed to maximise attention and emotion, which often favours polarising and radical content. The complete absence of regulation would therefore not mean greater freedom, but rather the empowerment of the most powerful technological players who already decide what users see and what remains hidden.

The real solution, therefore, is probably neither in a complete rejection of regulation nor in an uncritical acceptance of ever more heavy-handed interventions in the digital space. Above all, the Czech Republic will need a strong and truly independent coordinator of digital services, clear rules for identifying illegal content, greater transparency of algorithms and greater access to platform data by researchers. At the same time, it will be necessary to strengthen media literacy and society's ability to work critically with information, rather than the state or technology companies taking on the role of arbiter of truth.

Freedom of speech has never been absolute. Every democratic society searches for the line between the protection of the individual and the protection of the public space. In the digital era, however, this line is much more fragile than before, as 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 the fundamental question of whether the internet can be controlled without compromising the very essence of a free society. This is the biggest challenge for the Czech Republic and for Europe as a whole: to strike a balance between defending democracy and preserving the space for free, open and sometimes uncomfortable opinions, without which democracy cannot exist.

Prokop Stach