An attack on free speech, or on a cybercriminal?

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Pavel Durov — a social-media titan who is sometimes referred to as Russia’s answer to Mark Zuckerberg — was charged Wednesday in France with a range of crimes. The accusation? That he failed to prevent criminal activity on the online communications platform Telegram, which he co-founded with his brother in 2013.

The arrest has ignited another round of debate over the limits of free speech and the role social-media companies should play in policing their sites against criminal activity.

Shortly after the arrest, Elon Musk tweeted on X (his messaging platform formerly known as Twitter) that his Russian peer was being unfairly prosecuted.

“In Europe people will soon be executed for liking a meme,” Musk tweeted.

French prosecutors disagree.

Durov has been released on a $5.6 million bail and ordered to remain in France as officials prosecute allegations that Telegram, a widely used app in India, Russia and other former Soviet satellite states, is complicit in the spread of international crime. Those crimes are said to include child sex abuse, drug trafficking, fraud, online hate speech and terrorism.

Why does the Durov arrest matter here at home?

Much like the French, public opinion polls show that Americans have decidedly mixed views on the positive vs. deleterious effects of social media on the overall health and safety of our nation. Most users understand that opportunistic criminals and those intent on using messaging platforms to spread misinformation proliferate on social media. However, there is a deep divide on who is ultimately responsible for enforcing safeguards. The divide is partisan and often based on socioeconomic status.

A 2023 Pew survey (tinyurl.com/pew-speech) found that a majority of people who identify themselves as Democratic vs. Republican tend to believe that the government should take steps to restrict false information online (70% vs. 39%).

The survey also found that most Democrats and Democratic Party-leaners support technology companies policing and restricting false information (81%), while less than half of Republicans (48%) responded similarly.

The partisan gap remains when it comes to the question of restricting extremely violent content online. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that the U.S. government (71% vs. 48%) and tech companies (83% vs. 61%) should be held responsible for restricting violent content online — even if it means limiting the exchange of information or free speech, according to the survey’s findings.

Perhaps it’s not entirely surprising that the French made the move on Duval. While free-speech groups have lauded Telegram for its creation of a platform that enables private communications in oppressive regimes, critics contend that it has also become a haven for criminals and haters. The terrorists who planned the Paris terror attacks that killed 130 people in November 2015 are believed to have primarily used Telegram as their go-to platform for planning and coordination.

The question of free speech online and its limits will continue to be debated. Durov has apparently long embraced this reality. He defended his platform in a rare interview with Western media in 2016 when he told CNN that free speech is either free or it’s not.

“You cannot make it safe against criminals and open for governments. It’s either secure or not secure,” he said.

Forbes estimates that Durov’s net worth is $15.5 billion, making him the 120th-richest person on the planet. He also holds citizenships in four countries, including France. If convicted of willfully allowing criminal activity to flourish on his platform, he faces up to 10 years in a French prison.

The question now reverberating in all corners of social media is simple: Is the arrest of Durov an attack on free speech, or is it an attack on a complicit cybercriminal?