By V. Ramakanth
Freedom of Expression or Free Speech is guaranteed by almost all democratic constitutions. As the celebrated journalist Walter Cronkite argues, “There is no such thing as a little freedom. Either you are all free, or you are not free.”
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides the foundation for freedom of expression, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
In other words, the ruling dispensation cannot enact or pass laws that refrain individuals from expressing their ideas and opinions dear to their hearts.
The Russian Constitution Article 29 expresses similar sentiments but with a few riders like propaganda, agitation, and hatred are not allowed on issues concerning national security.
Article 5 and Article 220 of the constitution of Brazil also guarantee expression of thought and ideas which shall not be subject to any restrictions.
While Article 11 of the Constitution of France expresses similar sentiments it balances free speech with limitations on hate speech.
Understandably, the limitations reverberate in almost all constitutions when it concerns national security and law and order.
Czars of free speech
Against this backdrop, why have the free speech Czars with a massive following on their platforms X (Formerly Twitter) and Telegram hogged the headlines for the wrong reasons for the whole of the past week?
With the help of massive fiber grids and technological innovations, both giants have brought the entire world onto a single platform, providing unprecedented access to free speech without bias or prejudice.
Pavlov Durov of Telegram and Elon Musk of Space X, X are caught in legal hassles in countries that guarantee absolute free speech.
Telegram CEO, Pavlov Durov was arrested for lack of content moderation on his platform. As a result, the law enforcement agencies allege that it leads to money laundering, drug trafficking, and sexual exploitation of minors. And the French president clarified that his arrest has no political overtones.
While this is so, another Czar of the messaging service – X, beyond its ban in Brazil on the orders of a Serving Judge, also faces increased scrutiny in the European Union.
Telegram and X did face rough weather in Britain and were kept under surveillance by the British government for allegedly fanning riots that incited hatred against Muslims.
Pavlov Durov arrested
Pavlov Durov’s arrest by the French Police in France sent tremors to the X headquarters.CEO Elon Musk shot a travel advisory to his staff not to travel to Brazil and re-scheduled all his trips to what he considers as non-friendly destinations.
This raises a question: Is it simple to perform a balancing act between free speech and privacy? The issue is complicated. Both are fundamental to human rights as enshrined in their respective constitutions and can raise conflicts.
It further leads to legal hassles and needs to be tackled on a case-by-case basis by the courts, which in itself is a tedious and time-consuming process.
It is a universal truth that as technology evolves with each passing day, surveillance of individuals becomes a more complex task, especially when the ideas shared between two individuals are subject to end-to-end encryption.
One may argue that it would be very simple if the service providers shared the metadata their servers collected and provided surveillance tools. But then it would not only compromise users’ privacy (as is done by the social media application Facebook in handling of user data) but also questions the credibility of the messenger applications. The Czars of free speech, both Durov and Musk are not willing to budge an inch in providing user data or surveillance tools, which would compromise the privacy of its users.
Confusion prevails
No doubt, social media applications are pioneered by brilliant engineering brains. Governments across the world have no tools to track or decipher what is being shared on these platforms. The tussle is now to impose restrictions on the messenger applications or have back-door access to encrypted messages. Or bring in laws that moderate the content or remove what is unpalatable to ruling dispensations within a reasonable time frame.
Given the encryption mode, Governments have no other option than to track the users and the information they share on these applications. During World War II, it was altogether a different stream of technology and governments across the world employed powerful shortwave broadcast signals to counter the propaganda.
Cut to the 21st century the odds are many. Pavlov Durov on his Telegram channel writes, “I was told I may be responsible for other people’s illegal use of Telegram because the French authorities did not receive a response from Telegram.”
He goes on to argue that “if a country is unhappy with an internet service, the established practice is to start a legal action against the service itself. Using the laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform is a misguided approach.”
Brazil’s President hits hard at Musk
Flipside, Brazil’s President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva says, “The world doesn’t have to put up with Elon Musk’s “far right” ideology just because he is rich.”
Building such an innovative technology is hard enough as it is. And the rich have invested huge money to make the platforms robust and easy to access. Further, it requires not only sheer brilliance but also the speed at which it transmits the messages in real-time.
This leaves us with the question: Are the Tech giants responsible for third party misuse of their platform? How do we define what is misinformation or hate speech? These are always debatable questions. Didn’t the government use the same platforms to propagate its ideology? Were there any restrictions imposed on them by the platforms? The answer is a big NO. If insinuations are passed against the service providers, Durov says, “No innovator will ever build new tools if they know they can be personally held responsible for potential abuse of tools.”
Striking balance
Agreed! Striking a balance between privacy and security isn’t an easy task. Yet, imposing restrictions or banning such popular modes of communication goes against the constitutional right. Instead of resorting to extreme measures, Governments must constantly engage in a dialogue with the service providers to strike the right balance apart from engaging its intelligence and adapting to preventive measures rather than shooting the messenger applications.
What is palatable to a regulator may not be to the service providers. The day users understand that their privacy is compromised, none of them will embrace the platforms.
In a free market enterprise, both the tech giants have minced no words, “We are prepared to leave markets that aren’t compatible with our principles because we are not doing this for money.” A complete ban on such applications will defeat the tenets of free speech.
It’s a new world and new technology, and governments must find alternatives to track the perpetrators of crime rather than shooting down the messenger. Or look for possibilities to make the service providers accountable with reasonable penalties.
Governments on their own cannot build or provide platforms offering benefits on a global scale. Even if they do, the users will be wary of sharing their views. Free media is essential for mobilizing social movements, building communities on shared interests, and integral to real-time modern communication. After all, free speech is not about speaking alone, it is also about listening.
The balancing act requires constant engagement with service providers and moderation of content will be a win-win situation for everyone in the game.
V. Ramakanth is a senior journalist and former Addl. Director General of All India Radio & Doordarshan
| 
