Reactions to France’s arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov over the weekend were, unsurprisingly, largely predictable. One side argued that France detained the billionaire in response to the widespread criminality enabled through his encrypted messaging app. On the other, free speech advocates such as Edward Snowden and Alexei Navalny’s adviser Leonid Volkov criticized France’s move as an attempt to exert a degree of control over a digital bastion of free speech, given that Durov’s app exercises minimal control over its 900 million users worldwide.
I will not attempt to analyze the correctness of either of these viewpoints here, as I actually understand the concerns of both sides.
There is no doubt that free speech is a core American ideal, and I will always and forever be deeply suspicious of anyone who belittles that ideal and says patently insane things like that free speech today is primarily “a white male obsession” (to borrow the words of former Twitter vice president Jason Goldman, published in Time magazine).
One more thing worth noting specifically for American readers: Most people like to describe the First Amendment as “granting” freedom of speech to Americans, when in fact a strict interpretation of the wording of the amendment leads to a different conclusion. The only thing the amendment says about freedom of speech is that Congress cannot make laws that “limit” it or stand in the way of it. I may be being petty here, but in keeping with the idea that rights do not come from governments, the First Amendment does not create freedom of speech; it merely promises that the government stay out of your way when it comes to this special freedom.
Having said that…
There is not a single right I enjoy as an American that is limitless and cannot be taken away from me. The Constitution guarantees me the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but if I choose to commit a crime—well, I can kiss goodbye to all the life, liberty, and happiness I have enjoyed so far. Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms that the Second Amendment gives you does not give you the right to own a nuclear weapon. That right, too, has implicit limits. In short, there is no “you’re not the boss of me” defense that allows for unfettered freedom.
I don’t think I’m making a complicated or controversial argument here. Freedom of speech, for example, is not a license to incite violence. And anyone who hides under the guise of freedom of speech to promote or commit crimes of any kind is obviously a despicable human being who deserves punishment.
So what am I trying to say with all this?
Given the increasing popularity of equating freedom of speech with the far right, I can’t help but feel that some other country will be next to do to Elon Musk what France did to the CEO of Telegram.
The problem, I think, is that people mistakenly conflate a number of things that exist separately. Free speech, the ideal of it, is incompatible with a Borg-like surveillance machine that is always on the hunt for individuals who do or say certain things. For the same reason that free countries are not authoritarian police states. In free spaces of any kind, there will always be good people and the worst people who benefit together from the same freedoms.
Why does freedom of speech even need to exist? It’s to stop someone from forcing their beliefs on you or punishing you for your own beliefs or opinions. Personally, I think you should use your freedom of speech to fight back when Elon says something provocative, shocking or hurtful. And throwing the owners of online platforms in jail for not being tough enough on their users – that’s what the really bad guys like Russia, North Korea and China are trying to do.
How ironic that Durov’s arrest was not the work of Russia, which tried unsuccessfully to get Telegram to crack down on its users who expressed certain opinions. Rather, it was a democratic nation built on Western notions of freedom and independence that ultimately committed the crime. Let that sink in for a moment.
