Trial for free speech: Wikipedia, Telegram, X controversies reshape debate

X (formerly Twitter) has been banned in Brazil. A judge at Delhi High Court has threatened to  block Wikipedia in a defamation case. The Internet Archive (archive.org) has been asked to remove a huge chunk of content in a copyright case in the US. France has arrested Pavel Durov, the founder of the Telegram messaging app, on allegations that the app was used to disseminate child pornography. All these incidents have huge free speech implications, and all these cases are in jurisdictions considered democratic, with varying degrees of protections for free speech as a fundamental right. 

In April, Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered a ban on some X accounts, said to be spreading disinformation about Brazil. X refused to comply, and X-owner Elon Musk called Justice Moraes the “dictator of Brazil”. The war of words escalated to the point where a five–member Bench of Brazil’s Supreme Court upheld a ban imposed on X by Justice Moraes.

In India, press agency ANI filed a defamation case against Wikipedia, alleging defamatory statements such as claiming the agency is a “propaganda tool of the Indian government”. Judge Navin Chawla, asked for details about three accounts that made the edits, which Wikipedia found hard to provide. He has threatened to pass an order asking the government to block Wikipedia.

The Internet Archive is a free digital library with content from discontinued websites, old films, music, and books. It used to allow users to “borrow” one scanned digital book at a time, like a free public library. Post-Covid, the limitation of one book/one borrower was lifted to compensate for public libraries being shut.

Publishers sued, saying multiple simultaneous digital “borrowings” went beyond “fair use”. Publisher Hachette has won a judgment against the Archive in the Second Circuit, US Court of Appeals. The Archive may be forced to remove from public access some 500,000 books.

Many countries like Russia, Iran, and China have permanent bans on X. However, Brazil has about 20 million X users. X routinely geo-blocks accounts on government requests. For example, many accounts focused on Kashmir, Manipur, the farmers’ protests, among others, cannot be accessed normally within India. X also bans accounts for content in violation of its internal policies. The refusal to geo-block the Brazilian accounts is unusual, and the resulting ban will result in some loss of revenue.

The Archive case deprives researchers of free access to many books. The US Court noted the Archive did not profit from offering access. Analogously, books under copyright, including digital copies, are routinely lent out by free public libraries. The judgment makes access much more difficult for those who live in places where physical libraries don’t exist.

Wikipedia is crowd-sourced in 300 languages. Anyone may add or alter content, or initiate new entries. But assertions must have citations of publicly available information to back them. “Wiki” dwarfs any other repository in scale. While errors and biases exist, a self-correction mechanism allows users to dispute, revise, and discuss content. Like the Archive, it’s a go-to for researchers. Telegram is a channel similar to WhatsApp where users post stuff. It’s the go-to for content pertaining to the Ukraine War and Gaza.

Free speech absolutists will argue about the justification for bans in at least three of these instances. X has acted inconsistently in Brazil, as it geo-blocks political content on demand in many other places. But a ban on the entire platform seems like an overreaction.

Wiki’s model makes it hard to provide information about anonymous editors. The contentious edits about ANI are backed by public links. Again, the threat of a blanket ban blocking a huge non-profit repository of knowledge seems excessive and it would penalise millions of Indian users.

The Archive case feeds into many arguments about the free use of copyrighted material, including the use of such material to train large language models. Similar arguments could be used to deny public libraries the right to lend books.

Nobody can defend a right to disseminate child pornography. But Telegram can argue it has no control or oversight over content and, at best, it can cooperate with authorities to provide information about specific instances.

These cases push the envelope in terms of defining the laws of free speech in the 21st century’s digital environment. Since they are ongoing in large democracies, they will be taken more seriously by everyone than blanket bans in autocracies.