Speech Or Silence: The State Comes For Pavel Durov
Censorship Must Never Be Counted As Civic Duty
Is Free Speech now a crime?
In France, at least, that is the assertion which has been made, at least by implication, in Saturday’s arrest of Telegram CEO and founder Pavel Durov.
According to officials the 39-year-old billionaire was arrested under a warrant for offences related to the popular messaging app. The investigation is reportedly about a lack of moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.
The app is accused of failure to cooperate with law enforcement over drug trafficking, child sexual content and fraud. Telegram has previously denied having insufficient moderation.
How should we apprehend the seemingly anodyne phrasings of “lack of moderation” and “insufficient moderation”? At what point—is there even a point—where permitting even noxious speech becomes an intolerable offense?
The French state argues that there is.
Essential to understanding the implications of Durov’s arrest is recognizing the significance of the Telegram service as a social media platform. Founded by Durov and his brother in 2013, Telegram has grown to become one of the most popular social media platforms in the world.
In particular, Telegram is popular with Russians. However, the Telegram app has also become one of the top 5 most frequently downloaded applications worldwide.
Why is Telegram so popular? In part it is because of its committment to the principles of free speech, a fact corporate media concedes even as it takes backhanded swipes against those principles.
The company’s growth — it now has more than 900 million users — has been driven partly by a commitment to free speech. Telegram’s light oversight of what people say or do on the platform has helped people living under authoritarian governments communicate and organize. But it has also made the app a haven for disinformation, far-right extremism and other harmful content.
For the record, All Facts Matter also has a Telegram channel, albeit one which has fallen into disuse.
Nor is Durov’s committment to free speech merely an artifice or corporate pose. Shortly after founding Telegram, Durov left Russia rather than comply with government demands to shut down opposition voices.
The Russia-born entrepreneur lives in Dubai, where Telegram is based, and holds dual citizenship of France and the United Arab Emirates.
Durov, who is estimated by Forbes to have a fortune of $15.5bn (£12bn), left Russia in 2014 after he refused to comply with demands to shut down opposition communities on his VK social media platform, which he sold.
Telegram did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
Reaction to Durov’s arrest has been vocal and defiant. Elon Musk—who is embroiled in his own disputes with the European Union regarding free speech on Twitter/X—tweeted shortly after Durov’s arrest hypothesizing people could soon be executed in Europe just for liking a meme.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., similarly sounded the alarm that free speech was once again under attack.
Kennedy’s own battles with government and corporate media censorship played a major role in his decision to join with Donald Trump to form a “unity party” backing Trump’s Presidential election campaign.
Tucker Carlson noted the palpable irony that Durov was arrested not by autocrat Vladimir Putin but by France—notionally one of the world’s leading “democracies”.
There is indeed no small amount of irony that it is Russian lawmakers who are calling Pavel Durov a “political prisoner”, and taking France to task.
Russian lawmakers have condemned his arrest, with Maria Butina - who spent 15 months in a US prison for acting as an unregistered Russian agent - accusing Europe of trying to seize control of Telegram.
"Pavel Durov is a political prisoner - a victim of a witch-hunt by the West," she said.
"The arrest of Pavel Durov means there is no freedom of speech - it means that freedom of speech in Europe is dead.
"Now basically they have a hostage and they will try to blackmail Russia, they will try to blackmail all the users of Telegram and not only try to get control but also try to block the network here in Russia."
The Russian media platform RT has also weighed in, calling attention to France charging Durov with “insufficient moderation” and failing to curtail Telegram’s use by criminals and those who spread “disinformation” or “misinformation.
According to French media, the Russian tech entrepreneur, who also has citizenship of France, the UAE, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, was detained after landing at Paris-Le Bourget Airport on Saturday and is set to appear before a judge on Sunday evening. The French authorities had reportedly issued an arrest warrant for Durov, arguing that insufficient moderation on his platform allows for Telegram to be widely used by criminals.
Yet we should also note that these free speech concerns are at least conceptually validated by the virtue signalling Tweet of Alexander Vindman, who not only celebrated the arrest as a triumph of “accountability”, but also gave Elon Musk a dire warning that he, too, might face arrest in the EU at some point.
That this comes from Alexander Vindman deserves especial comment, as Vindman was one of the “star” witnesses in the Democrats’ execrable first impeachment of Donald Trump in 2019, which centered around the high crime and misdemeanor of Donald Trump having a phone call with the then newly-elected Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelensky.
In particular, in his deposition before the impeachment committee, Vindman arrogated to himself the power to critique and assess the President’s views on Ukraine as being harmful to US interests.
When I joined the National Secunity Council in July of 2018, I began implementing the administnation's Uknaine policy. In the spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the entire interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. Government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic about Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. Govennment efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.
Nor is there any doubt that Vindman believed he was empowered to offer such critique—he stated as much during his opening statement.
I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications to the U.S. Govennment's support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a bipartisan pIay, which would undoubtedly -- I'm sorry. I'm going to restate that. Sorry. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play, which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's legaI counsel.
We should note that Hunter Biden’s involvement with the notoriously corrupt Ukrainain energy concern Burisma figured prominently in the House of Representatives’ recently-concluded impeachment investigation of Joe Biden.
Alarming even at the time of Trump’s first impeachment, however, was Vindman’s presumption that “the interagency”—a rather anodyne phrasing for that entrenched bureaucracy known elsewhere as “the Deep State”—somehow has a superior voice in setting and guiding US foreign policy than the President himself, at whose pleasure every member of every agency involved in that “interagency” bureaucracy serves.
This lionized advocate of government authoritarianism is who is now salivating over the prospect of seeing not just Pavel Durov but also Elon Musk behind bars.
While it is undeniably within government purview to investigate actual crime, we must acknowledge that not even corporate media is alleging that Pavel Durov is at all involved in any of the potentially criminal conduct some allege takes place on Telegram. The complaint of “inadequate moderation” is a direct assertion that, somehow, a social media platform has a duty of care to police the speech (which is to say to police the thoughts) of its users.
The complaint presents a proposition that “disinformation” and “misinformation” are somehow intolerable societal evils. The complaint also presents the proposition that social media platforms are somehow supposed to assess what is and is not “misinformation”—or, rather, that they are supposed to accept the “official” diktats regarding same.
Against this proposition we have the reality of social media platforms such as LinkedIn censoring and deplatforming people for daring to challenge with empirical data the official narratives surrounding COVID.
Against this proposition we have the reality of social media platforms such as YouTube deleting video content—which is to say testimonial evidence—confirming the efforts of Big Tech to influence the trajectory of political debate and discourse in this country.
Against this proposition we have efforts by corporate media to deny and even delegitimize the numerous—and by now overwhelming—red flags establishing that the mRNA inoculations the government tried to force upon the entire nation are not merely ineffective against COVID, but are toxic and deadly in their own right.
Against this proposition about “misinformation” we have numerous and repeated efforts to silence and suppress important information solely because it conflicted with the “official” narrative.
When corporate media speak of “insufficient moderation”, this is what they mean. They mean that social media platforms are not helping to sustain the “official” propaganda put forward primarily by corporate media. They mean that social media platforms are not censoring enough speech, suppressing enough opposing ideas, silencing enough dissident voices.
Nor is that this takes place in France any assurance that such could not happen here. We must remember that, within the United States, social media platforms are already encouraged and incentivized to censor content, and have been for years.
Contrary to the prevailing narrative promoted by notional civil libertarians, the protections written into US law enjoyed by social media platforms are an unconstitutional license to censor speech.
Despite having a categorical right of free speech written into our Constitution, the reality of the law here in the United States is that there is already an affirmative duty of censorship asserted for social media platforms.
Censorship is becoming the moral imperative everywhere in the world.
Thus we must remember—and thus we must constantly articulate—that Free Speech is and always will be the moral imperative.
When I say that Free Speech is a moral imperative, I mean exactly that: we are called and obligated to speak our various truths, and to hear the truths of others. Free Speech is foundational to a Free Society, and to the premise of democratic governance. Free Speech is foundational to honest, upright, and ethical conduct. Free Speech is essential if we are to embrace human equality as a fundamental moral truth.
Thus we must defy the moral preening of Alexander Vindman and his ilk, who would happily see men like Pavel Durov and Elon Musk behind bars. Thus we must defy all those who want to silence anyone daring to articulate ideas anathema to those who claim political power over the rest of us.
“Accountability” must never perverted into a rationale for silencing those dissident voices, or the people who would empower dissident voices. Censorship must always be understood to be a civic harm, and never a civic duty.
The European Union is wrong to cry about “insufficient moderation” on Telegram or any other platform. The European Union is wrong to attack Elon Musk for his embrace of Free Speech. Morally, they are wrong. Morally, their laws are wrong.
Corporate media is wrong to constantly pontificate about “misinformation”, whether in regards to COVID, Ukraine, Russia, China, or any other political topic du jour.
France is wrong to have arrested Pavel Durov. They should release him forthwith and not tantrum that he declines to aid and abet government efforts to silence dissident voices.
Morally, they are wrong. Morally, their laws are wrong.
Society cannot be free in even the smallest regard if people are not free to express their opinions and their points of view. That some people find such views offensive for whatever reason can never be deemed grounds for silencing and suppressing them.
Free Speech must always be the moral imperative. Without Free Speech, we can never enjoy a Free Society.
The Deep State is trying to restore seditious libel… the idea that some ideas and points of view are so toxic that they must not be expressed. That is a natural point of view for a censor, but not for leaders.
I agree with you 100% regarding free speech. There is no honesty without free speech. No honor. No progress. It’s foundational to so much that is good and necessary to a desirable society.
I wish that people would boycott any social media that censors free speech. Go elsewhere, or start your own social platform. Unfortunately, people alive today in the western world have not been sufficiently taught the paramount virtue of free speech, so that’s not likely to happen.
I’m so disgusted with the EU’s censorship stance that I no longer want to visit there. I had dreamed of spending a whole pile of tourist dollars in Great Britain, France, and other European locales, but no more. Not if I had to take experiment ‘vaccines’, have a digital ID, or have my retinas scanned into a government data base at airports. Please, let’s have American tourist spending plummet in the EU. See how they like THAT response to censorship!
I watched the Tucker Carlson interview with Durov, and wow, what an impressive man. Sadly, he told a depressing story of when he was in the US looking for a home base for his growing empire. He was seriously considering places in Silicon Valley, but then, in broad daylight, he was viciously mugged on a street in San Francisco. Needless to say, he took his hundreds of jobs elsewhere. Newsom, you stupid twit, look what kind of damage is done by your soft-on-crime policies!