Censorship Industrial Complex
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov’s Arrest Is Part of a Global War on Free Speech
From The Rattler
Governments around the world seek to suppress ideas and control communications channels
It’s appropriate that, days after the French government arrested Pavel Durov, CEO of the encrypted messaging app Telegram, for failing to monitor and restrict communications as demanded by officials in Paris, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that his company, which owns Facebook, was subjected to censorship pressures by U.S. officials. Durov’s arrest, then, stands as less of a one-off than as part of a concerted effort by governments, including those of nominally free countries, to control speech.
“Telegram chief executive Pavel Durov is expected to appear in court Sunday after being arrested by French police at an airport near Paris for alleged offences related to his popular messaging app,” reported France24.
A separate story noted claims by Paris prosecutors that he was detained for “running an online platform that allows illicit transactions, child pornography, drug trafficking and fraud, as well as the refusal to communicate information to authorities, money laundering and providing cryptographic services to criminals.”
Freedom for Everybody or for Nobody
Durov’s alleged crime is offering encrypted communications services to everybody, including those who engage in illegality or just anger the powers that be. But secure communications are a feature, not a bug, for most people who live in a world in which “global freedom declined for the 18th consecutive year in 2023,” according to Freedom House. Fighting authoritarian regimes requires means of exchanging information that are resistant to penetration by various repressive police agencies.
“Telegram, and other encrypted messaging services, are crucial for those intending to organize protests in countries where there is a severe crackdown on free speech. Myanmar, Belarus and Hong Kong have all seen people relying on the services,” Index on Censorship noted in 2021.
And if bad people occasionally use encrypted apps such as Telegram, they use phones and postal services, too. The qualities that make communications systems useful to those battling authoritarianism are also helpful to those with less benign intentions. There’s no way to offer security to one group without offering it to everybody.
Durov’s Second Clash With an Authoritarian Government
A CNN report on the case (I watch so you don’t have to) weirdly linked Durov to Russian President Vladimir Putin, insinuating the two are conspiring. But as Reuters helpfully points out, “Telegram, based in Dubai, was founded by Durov, who left Russia in 2014 after he refused to comply with demands to shut down opposition communities on his VK social media platform, which he has sold.”
The Internet Archive contains links to 2014 posts by Durov boasting, in Russian, that he refused to surrender information about Ukrainian users of VKontakte to the Putin regime and balked at barring the late Alexei Navalny’s opposition group from the service.
“I’m afraid there is no going back,” Durov told TechCrunch after leaving Russia to build Telegram. “Not after I publicly refused to cooperate with the authorities. They can’t stand me.”
Telegram was initially blocked in Russia, but the ban was unpopular and unsuccessful, and soon dropped. The service is now widely used by both Russians and Ukrainians as a digital battleground in their war.
Given that Telegram was founded by a free speech champion who fled his home country after refusing to monitor and censor speech for the authorities, it’s very easy to suspect that Pavel Durov has run afoul of authoritarians operating under a different flag, no matter the protestations of French President Emmanuel Macron that the arrest “is in no way a political decision” and that France “is deeply committed to freedom of expression and communication.”
This is the same Macron, after all, who last year, after riots he insisted were coordinated online, huffed “We have to think about the social networks, about the bans we’ll have to put in place. When things get out of control, we might need to be able to regulate or cut them off.”
More recently, free speech groups objected to European Union threats to censor political content on X—specifically, an interview with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The U.S. Has Its Own Free Speech Concerns
Matters are better in the United States, but not so much (as we have every right to demand). The Twitter Files and the Facebook Files revealed serious pressure brought to bear by the U.S. government on social media companies to stifle dissenting views and inconvenient (to the political class) news stories. If any further confirmation was needed, Zuckerberg sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee on August 26 regretting the company’s role in succumbing to pressure to censor content.
“In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire,” Zuckerberg wrote to Chairman Jim Jordan (R–Ohio). “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.”
Zuckerberg also admitted to suppressing reports about the incriminating contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop at the FBI’s behest. “We’re ready to push back if something like this happens again,” he promised.
Fighting a Free Speech Recession
Durov’s arrest isn’t an isolated incident. It comes amid what Jacob Mchangama, (founder of the Danish think tank Justitia and executive director of The Future of Free Speech) calls “a free speech recession.” He warns that “liberal democracies, rather than constituting a counterweight to the authoritarian onslaught, are themselves contributing to the free-speech recession.”
“Recession” might be too soft a word to describe a phenomenon that has governments attempting to suppress ideas and arresting entrepreneurs who operate neutral communications channels. These are harsh policies with real costs in terms of human freedom.
Telegram didn’t respond to a request for comment, but in a public statement said, “it is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform.”
In a post from March, Pavel Durov himself commented, “All large social media apps are easy targets for criticism due to the content they host.” He vowed, “we shall solve any potential challenges the same way we do everything else — with efficiency, innovation and respect for privacy and freedom of speech.”
Durov’s arrest shows that he, like all champions of free expression, must wage their battles for liberty against the active opposition of government officials even in nominally free countries. Free speech is as important as ever, but more besieged than it has been in a long time.
Here are a few more good articles about liberty:
|
|
|
|
Censorship Industrial Complex
Death by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces its latest publication, Death by a thousand clicks: The rise of internet censorship and control in Canada, authored by veteran journalist and researcher Nigel Hannaford. The report outlines how recommendations from the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel in 2020 set the stage for a series of federal bills that have collectively transformed Canada’s once open internet into a state-managed digital environment that restricts what Canadians may access, share, and say online.
The report highlights the following federal legislation:
Online Streaming Act (C-11): Passed in 2023, this Bill gives the CRTC power to regulate online videos and other content, including material created by everyday Canadians. It also lets the government influence online “discoverability,” meaning it can push certain content to the top of your feeds while making other content harder to find.
Online News Act (C-18): Also passed in 2023, this Bill forces platforms to pay approved news outlets, a measure that led to increased dependence of media organizations on the government and widespread blocking of Canadian news as a result of Meta’s news ban on Facebook and Instagram.
Online Harms Act (C-63): Although this Bill was halted by the 2025 election, it would have empowered a new “Digital Safety Commission” to order content removals, demand platform data, levy severe financial penalties on service providers for non-compliance with regulations created by the federal cabinet, and impose house arrest on Canadians who had not been charged with or convicted of any crime. It also would have allowed the Canadian Human Rights Commission to pursue Canadians over non-criminal “discriminatory” speech, together creating a sweeping censorship regime under the guise of addressing so-called “harms” that were already illegal.
Strong Borders Act (C-2): Introduced in June 2025 and currently at second reading, this Bill authorizes law enforcement to obtain subscriber information and metadata without a warrant, chilling anonymous online expression and eroding digital privacy.
An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts (C-8): Introduced in April 2025 and now before committee, this Bill expands government access to private networks and enables federal officials to direct telecommunications providers to kick individual Canadians off the internet without due process or appeal.
Combatting Hate Act (C-9): Introduced in September 2025 and currently before Parliament, this Bill broadens “hate-propaganda” offences, removes Attorney General oversight for prosecutions, encourages widespread self-censorship, and makes Canada more like the United Kingdom, where thousands of citizens are arrested over their social media commentary.
Report author Nigel Hannaford said, “It is important for Canadians to know that these bills are not isolated technical updates. Together they form a coordinated shift toward state-managed digital speech.”
“If we value open debate, privacy, and democratic accountability, we need to repeal the laws already passed and stop the ones now before Parliament,” he added.
Benjamin Klassen, Research and Education Coordinator for the Justice Centre, said, “It is important Canadians stay informed about these important issues. An informed public is essential to a free society.”
“Through research reports like this one, our Education team works to explain complex legislation in a way that empowers Canadians to participate in the national debate around important policies and defend their rights and freedoms,” he added.
To protect free expression online, Canadians should demand the repeal of Bills C-11 and C-18, insist that MPs vote against Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9, and elect representatives committed to restoring a free and open internet.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canadian university censors free speech advocate who spoke out against Indigenous ‘mass grave’ hoax
From LifeSiteNews
Dr. Frances Widdowson was arrested and given a ticket at the University of Victoria campus after trying to engage in conversation about ‘the disputed claims of unmarked graves in Kamloops.’
A Canadian academic who spoke out against claims there are mass unmarked graves of kids on former Indigenous residential schools, and who was arrested on a university campus as a result for trespassing, is fighting back with the help of a top constitutional group.
Dr. Frances Widdowson was arrested and given a ticket on December 2, 2025, at the University of Victoria (UVic) campus after trying to engage in conversation about “the disputed claims of unmarked graves in Kamloops,” noted the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) in a recent news release.
According to the JCCF, Widdowson was trying to initiate a “good faith” conversation with people on campus, along with the leader of OneBC provincial party, Dallas Brodi.
“My arrest at the University of Victoria is an indication of an institution that is completely unmoored from its academic purpose,” said Widdowson in a statement made available to LifeSiteNews.
She added that the “institution” has been “perpetuating the falsehood” of the remains of 215 children “being confirmed at Kamloops since 2021, and is intent on censoring any correction of this claim.”
“This should be of concern for everyone who believes that universities should be places of open inquiry and critical thinking, not propaganda and indoctrination,” she added.
UVic had the day before Widdowson’s arrest warned on its website that those in favor of free speech were “not permitted to attend UVic property for the purpose of speaking publicly.”
Despite the warning, Widdowson, when she came to campus, was met with some “100 aggressive protesters assembled where she intended to speak at Petch Fountain,” noted the JCCF.
The protesters consisted of self-identified Communists, along with Antifa-aligned people and Hamas supporters.
When Widdowson was confronted by university security, along with local police, she was served with a trespass notice.
“When she declined to leave, she was arrested, detained for about two hours, and charged under British Columbia’s Trespass Act—an offence punishable by fines up to $2,000 or up to six months’ imprisonment,” said the JCCF.
According to Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett, UVic actions are shameful, as it “receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually while it facilitates the arrest of Canadians attempting to engage in free inquiry on campus.”
Widdowson’s legal team, with the help of the JCCF, will be defending her ticket to protect her “Charter-protected freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.”
Widdowson served as a tenured professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, before she was fired over criticism of her views on identity politics and Indigenous policy, notes the JCCF. She was vindicated, however, as an arbitrator later found her termination was wrongful.
In 2021 and 2022, the mainstream media ran with inflammatory and dubious claims that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some Canadian residential schools. The reality is, after four years, there have been no mass graves discovered at residential schools.
However, as the claims went unfounded, over 120 churches, most of them Catholic and many of them on Indigenous lands that serve the local population, have been burned to the ground, vandalized, or defiled in Canada since the spring of 2021.
Last year, retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht said Canadians are being “deliberately deceived by their own government” after blasting the former Trudeau government for “actively pursuing” a policy that blames the Catholic Church for the unfounded “deaths and secret burials” of Indigenous children.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, new private members’ Bill C-254, “An Act To Amend The Criminal Code” introduced by New Democrat MP Leah Gazan, looks to give jail time to people who engage in so-called “Denialism.” The bill would look to jail those who question the media and government narrative surrounding Canada’s “Indian Residential School system” that there are mass graves despite no evidence to support this claim.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoDeath by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet
-
Daily Caller2 days agoChinese Billionaire Tried To Build US-Born Baby Empire As Overseas Elites Turn To American Surrogates
-
Great Reset2 days agoViral TikTok video shows 7-year-old cuddling great-grandfather before he’s euthanized
-
Automotive2 days agoPoliticians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles
-
Digital ID1 day agoCanada releases new digital ID app for personal documents despite privacy concerns
-
Community1 day agoCharitable giving on the decline in Canada
-
Alberta7 hours agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Alberta2 days agoSchools should go back to basics to mitigate effects of AI




