Telegram, the arrest of Pavel Durov and what it means for Free Speech?

Today, the debate over free speech and its boundaries has just been elevated. Last week, the arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram which is the popular messaging platform, reignited the debate whether those who build systems that promote free speech without censorship are liable for the information their platforms contain?

As digital platforms become the new public squares, the tension between preserving free speech and preventing harm has once again intensified. Telegram sits at the heart of this debate by often being hailed as a champion of privacy and free expression, yet criticised for being a conduit for harmful activities. It's difficult to have an open debate about such polarising views because any level of censorship limits the absolute definition of free speech, while conversely, no control leads to the wild west.

Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, was arrested in Paris in August 2024

The Principle of Free Speech and Privacy

Free speech is a pillar of democratic societies. It is enshrined in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

This right to privacy and free expression is essential for the functioning of a free society, allowing individuals to voice dissent, share ideas, and communicate without fear of retribution.

Telegram’s commitment to privacy and resistance to censorship is a reflection of these principles. The platform’s robust encryption and refusal to compromise user privacy have made it a vital tool for people living under authoritarian regimes. For example, during the 2020 Belarus protests, Telegram became the primary communication tool for organisers and protesters who were facing a government-imposed internet blackout. By using Telegram, activists were able to coordinate, share information, and amplify their voices globally, despite the efforts of a repressive government to silence them.

Similarly, in Iran, where state censorship is pervasive, Telegram has been a lifeline for citizens seeking uncensored news and the ability to organise protests. The platform has allowed millions of Iranians to bypass government-controlled media, fostering a more informed and engaged populace.

We all may have our perception of Telegram, and that it skirts on the precipice of belonging to the Dark Web, this principle of protecting privacy is not limited to Telegram but other organisations have also held true to this notion. The most notorious example is with one of the largest companies in the world, Apple Computer who in February 2016 went to court to defend its position when the FBI requested that Apple build software to be able to unlock an iPhone that belonged to a shooter from a December 2015 Terrorist attack in California where 14 people were killed. Apple and Tim Cook’s position was to hold true that Apple has the “responsibility to protect your data and your privacy. We will not shrink from this responsibility.”. A noble position to protect privacy from Apple.

The Dark Side - Hate, Violence, and Misinformation

However, the same features that make Telegram the bastion of free speech also make it a platform for less noble causes. Telegram’s strong privacy protections and refusal to moderate content have allowed it to become a hub for illegal activities, including the spread of child pornography, misinformation, and extremist content. For instance, in 2020, during the anti-Muslim riots in Delhi, various extremist groups used Telegram to spread hate speech and incite violence against the Muslim community. The platform’s hands-off approach to content moderation made it difficult to track and prevent these activities.

Misinformation is another significant challenge. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Telegram was used to spread false information about the virus, vaccines, and treatments. This misinformation contributed to vaccine hesitancy, undermined public health efforts, and, in some cases, led to preventable deaths. The spread of harmful content on Telegram highlights the potential dangers of an unregulated platform and the fine line between free speech and the need for responsible content management.

Can One be Responsible for moderating Free Speech?

Moderating free speech is essentially an oxymoron and the dichotomy between Telegram’s role as a platform for free speech and its potential to facilitate harm underscores a broader societal challenge. On one hand, the protection of privacy and free expression is vital, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes. Telegram’s refusal to censor content has empowered countless individuals to voice their dissent and fight for their rights in the face of repression.

On the other hand, the platform’s lack of content moderation can enable the spread of harmful and illegal activities, posing risks to public safety and security. The dissemination of extremist content, misinformation, and illegal activities cannot be ignored. These realities force us to confront the question: where should the line be drawn between protecting free speech and ensuring public safety?

Or is this question broader than Telegram? For those seeking extremist content, misinformation or are looking to deal in illegal activities, Telegram is one of many tools that they can utilise to do so. Arguably, if one is looking for such content, they’ll find it elsewhere if not on Telegram. For example, in 2020 when conspiracy theories about 5G technology causing COVID-19 gained traction on YouTube, leading to real-world consequences such as attacks on 5G infrastructure.

Upholding Free Speech in the Digital Age

Advocating for free speech in the digital age requires a nuanced understanding of both its benefits and potential harms. Platforms like Telegram play a crucial role in giving a voice to the voiceless and enabling the free flow of information in repressive environments. However, they also bear the responsibility of ensuring that this freedom does not come at the expense of public safety and the rule of law.

Ultimately, one has to pick a side, and I would argue that the side against censorship has stronger principles to stand by. The right to free speech and expression is a fundamental human right, enshrined in many international human rights treaties and conventions. Censorship can be seen as a violation of this right, and Telegram's lack of censorship can be seen as a protection of this right. Additionally, censorship is a complex technical challenge, and is difficult to implement and maintain. Instead of censorship, Telegram could potentially implement alternative solutions such as user reporting, user driven moderation, and content labelling to address concerns around harmful content. Telegram users should have the autonomy to decide what content they want to consume and share while censorship can be seen as a violation of this autonomy and can lead to a loss of trust in the platform. When it comes to free speech, censorship can be used as a tool for governments to suppress dissenting voices and silence opposition.

The debate over Telegram’s approach to free speech is not just about the platform itself but about the broader principles that guide our digital society. As we navigate this complex landscape, we must strive to protect the fundamental rights enshrined in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while also addressing the challenges posed by the misuse of these freedoms.

In the end, the solution may lie in striking a balance. A balance that preserves the right to free speech and privacy while implementing measures that prevent harm and protect public safety. Many of us reading this blog post live in open and free societies that generally allow us to share our opinions openly (like this one). It's sometimes difficult to appreciate the struggle that some of humanity deals with seeking information and being able to speak openly. As we continue to comprehend these issues, it is crucial to remember that the fight for free speech is also a fight for a society where individuals can express themselves without fear, while also being shielded from the dangers that unchecked freedom can bring.