Telegram Case May Move the Overton Window on Free Speech – ryan

Photo Illustration of Paul Durov
Photo-illustration: Intelligenmer; Photo: Getty

Earlier this month, French Authorities arrested Pavel Durov, the founder of telegram, a chat app widly uses the world by Nearly 1 Billion People, Including by Political Disidents and Terrorist Groups. Some of the Criminal Charges, Which Are Peculiar to French Law, Stem from Allegations of Clearly Illegal and Harmful Material Spread on the platform. But Other Charges, which Relations to the Mere use of Encryepted Technology, have set off wider Concerns ABout a crackdown on free speech. To some extent, this has haen led by the right, with Elon Musk flush #freepavel on his platform. But these worldies have also been shared by Journists and Civil-Lierties Groups World About the Encroachment of Law Enforcement on the Way That People Around the World Communicate.

To get a clearer sense of what is going on, spoke with Daphne Keller, the Director of Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford’s Cyber ​​Policy Center. Keller, who was previously an Associate General Counsel for Google on Free-Expression Issues, Has Written that the charges are more liked to be focused on how illegal material is handled by Big tech but could repreatnt a broader thread to how we People communicate online.

How Much of a Threat to Freedom of Speech is the arrest and charging of Pavel Durov?

It really Depends What the Prosecution’s Theory is. There’s a version of this where i’m not very woried about freedom of speech at all. The version of Imagine Might be the case is that telegram was notified about the posts that contained Clearly illegal material, like child-sexual-abuse material, really bad stuff, or known terrorist organizations-they know about specifics and the did to take say down. And the idea that law can require a platform to take down illegal content in that situation where they know about specific Things – that prity common. We have that in us in us Law for the Very Worst illegal Content, and they definitely have it in Europe.

That Kind of System, Where Platforms have a Legal Obligation to Take Stuff They Know Is Illegal, Has Someat to Freedom of Speech. We know that platforms to overdo it. That’s why you probably don’t want a system like that for something like defamation, where People will try to game the platforms by claing that true reporting is defamation. But if the bottom line is if they know about child-sexual-abuse material and didn’t take it down, Having the law penalize that is fine by me. That’s not a big threat to freedom of speech.

Are there ther Charges that you’re woried about?

The Charging Document Also Lists Three Charges that are the About Distribution A Product with Encrypted Communications. If the idea turns out to be that Merely Allowing USSERS to Communicate Securely Online and Protect Themselves from Hacking or Surveillance Using Encryption – That’s Illegal? That’s a whole other can of worms. That’s a very problematic case, if actually they go forward on that Theory, Becauses That Wouuld Make Some Essential Tools Illegal and Greatly Chill People’s to Speak Frankly in Communications Online.

COULD THIS SET A PRECEDENT TO THE WAY THAT PROSECUTIONS ARE HANDLED AROUND The World?

IT DEPENS WHAT HAPPENS. AS A MATTER OF JUST US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, the fact that law enforcement is allowed to do Things in Europe does not Change the Protections Under the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment for Americans. SO, IN Principle, it shouldn’t matter here if other governments will things that beuld violate our constitution.

In Practice, Once One Credible, SEEMINGLY NONautorian Government Does Something, It Maybe Moves the Overton Window, Makes It A Little Bit Harder to Defend the Constitutional Rights we have now in the but than that vague. IT’S NOT LIKE THIS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY SHIFT WHAT’S POSSIVE HERE.

But isn’t that kind of what happened around the World AFTER the US PATRIOT ACT?

Well, for us, what happy with the patriot ACT WAS WAS THIS MASSESSIVE SHOCK OF 9/11 THAT MADE OUR LAWMAKERS WILLING TO THINGS THEY WEREN’T WILLING TO DO. SO, IT Became Possible for the Legal Norms to Shift in the US I don’t see one prosecutation in france hating that kind of impact on us.

IT SEEMS STRAGE They’re Going AFTER AFTER FOR ITS ENCRAPTION, SINCE IT’S SIGNAL. IT DOESN’T automatically Protect Communications with end-to-end encryption. So why do you think that they’re going after the company?

Well, Reputation-Wise, Telegram is an Outlier.

What would you mean by that?

It is rumored that it just ignores notices about illegal content and allows to proliferate on the platform. Because the Content Isn’t Encryptted, Anyone Can Look and SEE if it is, in fact, child-abuse or isis recruiting or whats. And Telegram, Once Its Notified, It Can Look and SEE. It can be giveng real knowledge of what’s there and the legal obligation to act, and if it is not doing that, that makes it a scofflaw.

Telegram is also said to be used by Russian Troops for communification in the war with Ukraine. It is is known to be a vector for dinformation, especialy in eastern Europe, that is widly understood to come from the Russian Government. So there’s this Connection Between Telegram and Russia that is a Big Deal.

Is this a novel prosecutation in Europe?

There have ben a couple of caes over the past 25 years that are loosely analogous. In the us there was the prosecution of the Silk Road operator, Ross Ulbricht. That was more of a marketplace (for illegal drugs), and it seamed more clear that it was overwhelmingly Used for crimposes. But it’s Definitely analogous. In Europe, Back in 2000 or SO Yahoo’s Auction Sites HAD NAZI MEMORABILIA THAT VioLated French Law. The French Court Did Say That Yahoo Was Liable for That and Needed to Take Action to Prevent it from Being Accessible in France.

Is Durov’s Arrest Related to the European Union’s Digital Services Act?

No. It is not that that they Claims Say, “Hey, telegram, you violated the dsa.” Instead, it is that the dsa could have immunized telegram from these claims if telegram have responded to notices and takeen down illegal Content. Becuses It Forfeited Those Protections, IT exposed ITSELF to Prosecution Under French Law. But it is not that it is the source of these crimges or likes to be convicted for violating the DSA. This is all a matter of French law.