The War on Free Speech: Hypocrisy in France and Brazil's Approach to Digital Platforms

Nations like France & Brazil, both with storied histories of championing free speech, have recently come under scrutiny for actions that appear to contradict their long-standing commitments to speech

In recent years, the global discourse around free speech has increasingly centered on the digital realm, where platforms like Facebook, Telegram and Twitter (now X) have become the front lines in what many see as a war on free expression and controlling the town square. Nations like France and Brazil, both with storied histories of championing free speech, have recently come under scrutiny for actions that appear to contradict their long-standing commitments to this fundamental right.

The cases of these two countries highlight the contradictions in the global battle over free speech. This year more than ever this battle is facing an uphill battle as elections across the globe offer two different directions, one of censorship and one of freedom. The people will vote!

In the United States, the founders were clear and held a deep and abiding belief in the importance of free speech as a cornerstone of democracy. This conviction is most famously enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The Founders, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire, viewed free speech as essential for the exchange of ideas, the pursuit of truth, and the protection against tyranny.

They believed that a robust and open dialogue was crucial for the health of the republic, ensuring that government remained accountable to the people and that citizens could freely express their views without fear of repression.

This dialogue on now in the courtroom, departments of justice and across the globe under attacks, as governments attempt to limit free speech, spy on citizens without due process and censor speech they don’t agree with. The recent letter from Founder & CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg highlighted the amount of control the government attempted to have on Facebook during Covid and beyond.

Let’s examine the top cases currently making headlines and could be course changing in the freedom of speech in the globe and provide a blueprint to force these platforms to limit speech.

France: The Guardian of Free Speech—With Conditions

France has long positioned itself as a staunch defender of free speech, a stance deeply embedded in its national identity. From the Enlightenment era to the French Revolution, the country's legal and cultural frameworks have consistently upheld the right to free expression. Voltaire, one of the most prominent Enlightenment philosophers, famously asserted the importance of defending free speech, even for opinions one might disagree with. This philosophy laid the groundwork for the principles that would be enshrined in French law, including the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which explicitly protects the free communication of ideas.

However, France's commitment to free speech has not been without its limitations. The Law on Freedom of the Press, passed in 1881, set the stage for legal boundaries on expression, particularly regarding libel, hate speech, and, more recently, Holocaust denial. These restrictions, while intended to maintain public order and protect individuals from harm, have sparked ongoing debates about the balance between free speech and societal responsibility.

The tragic attacks on Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and the murder of teacher Samuel Paty in 2020 further underscored France's complex relationship with free speech. In both cases, the French government, led by figures like President François Hollande and President Emmanuel Macron, reaffirmed the nation's commitment to free expression, even in the face of violent opposition. Yet, these events also highlighted the selective application of free speech principles in France.

The government's crackdown on online speech critical of police and the tightening of laws around hate speech have led some to accuse France of hypocrisy, pointing out that its staunch defense of free expression seems to waver when faced with speech that challenges state authority or societal norms to meet the local government agenda. None is clear then the case against Pavel Durov, founder and CEO at Telegram. I have written about this already on here and here is an excerpt from the charges levied against Mr. Durov

Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, is currently facing multiple serious charges in France related to the operations of his messaging platform. These charges, part of an ongoing investigation, reflect the French authorities' concerns about Telegram's role in enabling various illegal activities.

The charges against Durov include:

1. Complicity in enabling illegal transactions through an online platform as part of an organized group.

2. Failure to cooperate with law enforcement, specifically in providing information for legal interceptions.

3. Complicity in possessing and distributing child pornography within organized groups.

4. Complicity in drug trafficking, including the acquisition, transport, and sale of narcotics.

5. Complicity in fraud, including organized fraud schemes.

6. Money laundering related to proceeds from organized crime.

7. Provision of unlicensed cryptology services, which includes tools aimed at ensuring confidentiality without proper authorization.

8. Facilitating the import and use of unauthorized cryptology tools.

9. Criminal association with the intent to commit offenses that are punishable by five or more years of imprisonment.

These charges are so egregious that they technically could be charged against any ISP or platform operator anywhere. France is threading a line where it might be dangerous to be any business with as they show that government has no issues going after anyone who they deem to be a threat to their control of dialogue on the internet.

Brazil: A Constitutional Right Under Siege

Brazil, too, has a constitution that enshrines free speech as a fundamental right, a protection established in the wake of the country's military dictatorship. The 1988 Constitution prohibits censorship and ensures the right to freely express thoughts, with exceptions for hate speech and actions that threaten public order. Additionally, the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, passed in 2014, was designed to safeguard online expression, emphasizing net neutrality and privacy while requiring court orders for content removal.

However, Brazil's judiciary, particularly under Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, has taken controversial actions that some view as necessary to protect democracy, while others see them as overreaching. De Moraes has led efforts to combat disinformation and political violence, often targeting the conservative movements and ordering the blocking of social media accounts.

These actions have sparked significant debate about the balance between maintaining public order and upholding free speech, with critics arguing that such measures amount to judicial overreach and censorship.

This tension came to a head in 2024 when tech mogul Elon Musk challenged Brazilian authorities over court-ordered censorship on X, highlighting the ongoing struggle to maintain a free and open discourse in Brazil. The incident underscores the broader conflict between protecting democratic institutions and safeguarding individual rights in the digital age.

Brazil here picked a fight with the one man arguably willing to have the free speech battle like Elon Musk, who spent $44 Billion Dollars to buy Twitter and turn it into free speech and while opposes will argue that Twitter content has diminished the numbers and engagements don’t lie and twitter is the leading platform for free speech, in fact President Biden announced his withdrawal from the Presidential race a month ago on Twitter.

The Hypocrisy of Free Speech

The recent actions by France and Brazil against platforms like Telegram and X reveal a deep hypocrisy in their respective approaches to free speech. While both nations have historically advocated for the right to free expression, their current policies and actions tell a different story. France, once a beacon of free speech, now faces criticism for selectively applying its principles, especially when it comes to speech that challenges state authority. Similarly, Brazil's constitutional protections for free speech are increasingly undermined by judicial actions that prioritize public order over individual rights.

The arguments made by the government to undermine free speech, using words like Far-right, extremism and other words that linger are a real threat. The threat here is once you agree that some speech should be censored then at some point it will be your speech that will be. The slope is slippery.

I have had this argument multiple times since October 7^th, 2023, and the rise of antisemitism online and everywhere else. While many sought to censor or ban these voices, I advocated that only when they spew antisemitism can I win people over but if I censor them, I lose that battle every day.  

We the People are the ones who can argue, debate and otherwise say what’s on our mind. The first amendment and free speech is to limit government intervening in people’s rights to free speech and it’s not designed to be used against the people but rather against the government. We must understand that debate is critical and necessary.

These contradictions are not just a domestic issue but have global implications. As both nations engage in international forums on internet governance and digital rights, their actions at home raise questions about their credibility as advocates for free speech. The war on free speech is not just a battle against censorship; it is also a struggle against the hypocrisy of those who claim to defend this fundamental right while simultaneously undermining it.

In an era where digital platforms have become the new public square, the actions of France and Brazil serve as a stark reminder that the fight for free speech is far from over. As these nations continue to navigate the complexities of free expression in the digital age, the world will be watching to see whether they will truly uphold the values they so vocally champion—or whether their commitment to free speech is nothing more than a convenient facade.