If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. French prosecutors staged a morning raid at the Paris offices of social media platform X, part of a criminal investigation coordinated with Europol. The operation, launched in 2025, targets allegations ranging from the alleged distribution of sexual deepfakes to algorithmic manipulation. The cybercrime division in Paris is exploring whether X’s automated systems may have been used in an “organized structure” to distort data or suppress information. The alleged offenses are as follows: Denial of crimes against humanity (Holocaust denial) Fraudulent extraction of data from an ⁠automated data processing system ​by an organized group Falsification of the operation ‌of ‌an automated data processing system by an organized group Defamation of a person’s image (deepfakes of ​sexual nature, including minors) Operating of an illegal online platform by an organized group Prosecutors have now summoned Elon Musk and former CEO Linda Yaccarino for questioning in April. “Summons for voluntary interviews on April 20, 2026, in Paris have been sent to Mr. Elon Musk and Ms. Linda Yaccarino, in their capacity as de facto and de jure managers of the X platform at the time of the events,” the office said. Yaccarino, who left in mid-2025, might find herself reliving the company’s most volatile months, when X faced regulatory crossfire across the continent for refusing to comply with what it called political censorship demands. The case actually began with two complaints in January 2025, including one from French lawmaker Eric Bothorel, who accused X of narrowing “diversity of voices and options” after Musk’s takeover. Bothorel cited “personal interventions” in moderation decisions, a line that seemed more about ideology than algorithms. As the investigation grew, prosecutors took interest in Grok, X’s AI system, which allegedly produced “Holocaust denial content” and “sexual deepfakes.” The Paris prosecutor’s office soon announced it was examining “biased algorithms.” Musk called the whole affair a “politically-motivated criminal investigation,” and considering Europe’s recent appetite for speech regulation, it’s not a stretch to see why he’d think that. The prosecutor’s office later made a show of abandoning X for official communications, declaring it would now post updates on LinkedIn and Instagram. The announcement appeared, of course, on X before the account went silent. For a government body investigating digital bias, the symbolism was perfect: condemn the platform, then use it one last time for a statement of moral superiority. For all the talk of algorithms and data systems, the real conflict is political. X has become the testing ground for how far European governments can stretch “safety” laws to regulate online speech. Other platforms generate deepfakes and “misinformation” at similar rates, yet only one keeps getting raided, fined, and subpoenaed. French prosecutors insist the investigation is “constructive,” meant to ensure compliance with national law. But it looks like another round of the same standoff: regulators insisting on obedience, and Musk refusing to play by their script. France’s History of Overreach Documents obtained by the US House Judiciary Committee show that European regulators privately warned X it could be blocked across the EU unless it met a long list of demands under the Digital Services Act. The threat later appeared in a 184-page ruling that cites Article 75(3), giving Brussels the power to “disable access to the infringing service.” The justifications seem less like law and more like pretext. Regulators claimed X “misappropriated” the blue checkmark, fined it €45 million for that, another €35 million for an ad-transparency database they said was too small, and €40 million for restricting access to certain “qualified researchers.” The evidence included a parody Donald Duck account with a verified badge that allegedly “misled users.” These examples form the backbone of a €150 million penalty. The logic behind them stretches thin: no proven harm, no victims, but plenty of bureaucratic outrage. Beyond that, Brussels ordered X to hand over data to researchers examining US political content, prompting the House Judiciary Committee to call it an intrusion on American sovereignty. The record shows a system less concerned with protecting users than asserting control. By using trivialities as proof of wrongdoing, the Commission turned enforcement into a performance, one where weak evidence supports sweeping powers to silence a platform that refuses to play along. For years, the European Union’s campaign to rein in X was driven by Thierry Breton, the French Commissioner for the Internal Market and one of Brussels’ most zealous enforcers of the Digital Services Act. Long before his resignation, Breton had become the face of Europe’s regulatory crusade against Musk’s platform, routinely warning that noncompliance could mean exclusion from the EU market. Breton’s tenure was defined by confrontation. In one of his most notorious moves, he sent Elon Musk a formal letter threatening penalties if X permitted speech that could “seriously harm” EU citizens. The letter arrived just hours before Musk’s scheduled interview with then-Candidate Donald Trump and, according to officials, was dispatched without approval from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen or other commissioners. The EU had overplayed its hand, and it was clear the supernational union had made its vendetta too obvious. Colleagues criticized the “timing and wording” of the warning, calling it inconsistent with the Commission’s collective stance. Even after stepping down, Breton continued to justify the very policies that made him divisive. He refused to testify before the US House Judiciary Committee at a hearing titled “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” claiming short notice. Instead, he published an op-ed insisting that the Digital Services Act was not censorship but a democratic expression of European sovereignty. He argued that failing to regulate the digital space would mean “a historic abdication of the public sphere.” The French Model of Digital Accountability France has moved beyond fines and takedowns to something far more personal. Its decision to treat platform executives as criminally liable for user-generated content has unsettled an industry already bracing for scrutiny. Reflecting on the raid against X today, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov posted, “France is the only country in the world that is criminally persecuting all social networks that give people some degree of freedom. Don’t be mistaken: this is not a free country.” And he should know. The raid on X’s Paris headquarters follows the same pattern set by the shocking arrest of Durov in 2024, an episode that marked a turning point in Europe’s enforcement culture. Durov’s detention, carried out under a warrant alleging that Telegram had been used for criminal activity, drew swift condemnation from civil-rights groups and tech leaders. He was placed under judicial supervision and prevented from leaving France, a gesture that made clear prosecutors were willing to hold individual executives responsible for what users posted or shared. That precedent now shadows every major platform operating in the country. The approach, framed by French officials as a defense of sovereignty, diverges sharply from norms elsewhere in the democratic world. In most Western jurisdictions, liability is corporate and penalties are financial. France, by contrast, has fused national authority with personal accountability, creating a hybrid model that places executives within reach of criminal law whenever their platforms are accused of hosting illegal content. Inside the industry, the reaction is cautious but alarmed. Executives describe a climate in which even good-faith cooperation with investigators feels risky. Civil-liberties groups see a deeper concern. By linking speech regulation to criminal prosecution, France risks turning digital governance into a form of state oversight. The mix of prosecutorial authority and algorithmic monitoring may compel compliance, but it also raises the question of whether the country’s approach still fits within the democratic boundaries it claims to defend. The accumulation of actions taken against X points to a regulatory strategy that has narrowed its focus onto a single platform willing to contest authority. Enforcement has unfolded through raids, personal summonses, and legal threats that extend beyond corporate liability, creating a climate where discretion rests almost entirely with the state. France’s posture, reinforced by EU mechanisms, reflects a governing philosophy that treats control of digital speech as a prerequisite of sovereignty. Platforms operating under this framework face a system where legal exposure expands alongside political disagreement, and where uncertainty itself becomes an instrument of compliance. X’s experience illustrates how digital regulatory power now functions in Europe. The process rewards alignment, punishes resistance, and leaves little room for independence once scrutiny begins. That dynamic, once normalized, reshapes the operating conditions for every platform that follows. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post France’s Raid on X Opens New Front in Europe’s War Over Online Speech appeared first on Reclaim The Net.