Today`s work is only the first step towards a common goal of eliminating terrorist content online. However, the steps taken to achieve this are not limited to what has been done today: an agreement has been reached to continue cooperation to improve collective security. However, the White House will not sign the agreement, the United States is concerned that it will conflict with the constitutional protection of free speech. The United States has shaken a broad agreement reached today at the Christchurch Call to Action in Paris to eliminate extremist terrorist and violent content online. She cited freedom of expression and freedom of the press as the reason she would not adhere to the agreement and said promoting credible and alternative narratives was the best way to defeat terrorist messages. The United States refused to participate and expressed concern that the United States` compliance with the agreement could lead to conflicts with the protection of freedom of expression in the country`s constitution; The US, however, supported the summit`s “cross-cutting message” and “endorsed its overall objectives”.   Tech companies and world leaders have signed an unprecedented Christchurch Call agreement to eliminate extremist terrorist and violent content online. Tom Rogan argued in the Washington Examiner that the purpose of the call for governments to cooperate with corporations to stop “violent extremist content” would violate Americans` First Amendment rights to the Constitution by using war recordings on YouTube as an example of content that could be blocked under this deal.  Nick Gillespie of Reason criticized the summit and wrote that “anyone who believes in free speech should be deeply troubling that governments and businesses are working openly together to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not.”  Differences of opinion on the Christchurch Call have highlighted a long-standing tension between EU officials, who have traditionally shown a greater willingness to contain and regulate internet companies, and the US, where companies have ample leeway to monitor themselves. . .