On 12 November 2025, Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, unveiled the so-called Democracy Shield. This is a project which includes a new institute, the European Centre for Democratic Resilience, which is supposed to enlist experts for the fight against disinformation. Ironically, however, von der Leyen’s European Commission is itself not democratically elected, although it in effect holds both the executive and legislative power in the European Union.

A Sword Against Freedom?

I am reminded of what the distinguished economist Frank H. Knight once said: that when a man or group asked for power to do good, his impulse was to cancel out the last three words, leaving simply ‘I want power’. The Democracy Shield is supposed to be directed mainly against Russian disinformation, in particular attempts to influence elections in the West. Surely, this is a real menace. But where is the guarantee that the Democracy Shield would not be used against free speech, bold ideas, controversial arguments, unorthodox approaches? It should be recalled that the Soviet Union maintained a huge propaganda machine in Western democracies before and during the Cold War. While this machine certainly did have some impact, it was not closed down. The idea of a Democracy Shield is a faint, admittedly very faint, echo of Göbbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment (!) and Propaganda, and the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighy Four. It may become less of a Shield for Democracy than a Sword against Freedom.

Freedom for Loki as Well as for Thor

History repeats itself. In 1945, immediately after the surrender of the Nazi occupation force in Denmark, a lively debate took place there about the limits of freedom, the ‘Democracy Debate’. It started with two communist intellectuals, Jørgen Jørgensen and Mogens Fog, asserting that a democratic country had to defend herself. She could not tolerate anti-democratic speech, for example from Nazis. The two communists rejected the famous maxim by the Danish nineteenth-century poet and national liberal N. F. S. Grundtvig that there should be freedom for Loki as well as for Thor. (Loki was a rogue heathen god, malicious and sly, whereas Thor was a heroic heathen god, wielding his hammer against the forces of evil.) Against the two communists, many Danish intellectuals protested that democracy was not least about deliberation and discussion, and that it therefore required freedom of expression.

The most thoughtful contribution to the debate came from a distinguished Grundtvigian, Law Professor Poul Andersen. He argued that there were many different conceptions of democracy and that therefore a ban on anti-democratic speech was difficult to implement. He concluded that any political opinion should be allowed, even if it would imply the rejection of democracy, yes, even if it would be a demand for a constitutional change in an anti-democratic direction. Limitations should only be about the means used, Andersen said. Violence and terror should be excluded.

Truth Strengthened by Refuting Falsehood

It was somewhat incongruous that Danish communists in 1945 demanded a ban on anti-democratic speech, because the historical divide between communists and social democrats was after all that communists would not rule out seizing power by non-democratic means. But John Stuart Mill expressed a idea similar to that of Grundtvig and Andersen in his celebrated Essay on Liberty, that truth would be strengthened if it must refute falsehood. Even the Catholic Church used to appoint a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ (Advocatus Diaboli) to argue against candidates for sainthood. Perhaps Denmark, as a member state of the European Union, will use her influence there to uphold Grundtvig’s maxim about freedom for Loki as well as for Thor.

(The conservative 5 December 2025.)