That free speech is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions for public order, morals and public health is something that has been codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The founder and chief executive officer of Telegram, Pavel Durov, is a technology creator who has emphasised absolute free speech on his platform and has built an anti-establishmentarian image by risking the wrath of nation-states in allowing dissidents to use the messaging application. His detention and arrest by French authorities, in connection with investigations related to criminal activity on the app, has raised the question if this has been done to provide a chilling effect on freedom of expression on the Internet. But the answer is more complicated. His laissez-faire approach to content on the app has meant that it is host also to extremism, drug dealers, scammers and, according to France, child pornography as well. Mr. Durov has said, “privacy… is more important than our fear of bad things happening …and that, to be truly free, you should be ready to risk everything for freedom”. But can it be done to override the responsibility to prevent consequences which could endanger people’s safety and freedom? This is a key question to ask about messaging apps and “free speech absolutists” such as Mr. Durov.
Telegram is more than just a messaging app given some of its social networking features. While its encryption mechanisms allow for ease of access for dissidents and anti-state actors to use the app without scrutiny, it does not fully use “end to end” encryption — something that apps such as Signal do. This means that some messages related to criminal activity, disinformation, and child pornography can be read by Telegram; it can act on requests from law enforcement agencies if needed. Telegram, in response to Mr. Durov’s arrest, has said that its moderation “is within industry standards” and has questioned whether the platform/owner are liable or responsible for “abuse of that platform”. That may well be the case, but if in investigations by France, the platform is seen to have wilfully refused to act upon requests to curb hate speech, disinformation and contents related to criminal activity, Mr. Durov cannot and should not escape the long arm of the law. In India, the baleful effects of misinformation on platforms such as WhatsApp were visible some years ago, before the application came up with certain restrictions. These helped tamp down the spread of misinformation. For Telegram to remain a free speech advocate and a platform, it must eschew absolutism and become more responsible in moderating content.
