Pavel Durov, the co-founder of the social media app, Telegram, has long been a fierce advocate of the notion that privacy and free speech go hand in hand: he pledged both on his popular platform. Mr Durov was now under arrest in France, accused of allowing criminal activity, including drug trafficking and the spread of images of child sexual abuse, on Telegram. In the meantime, Brazil has banned X, the platform previously known as Twitter, for allegedly allowing hate speech and disinformation to flourish under the leadership of the SpaceX and Tesla founder, Elon Musk. These developments in France and Brazil raise fresh questions about the tense relationship between the principle of free speech on the one hand and the rule of law and the privacy of individuals on the other. Telegram has established itself as a rare platform whose avowed commitment to free speech means that it is trusted by both the Kremlin as well as the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, political propagandists and rebel movements. Armies use it for battlefield communication and civilians use it for direct messaging and small trade in a testament to the platform's privacy security features. Mr Durov is in prison because of Telegram's refusal to cooperate with French authorities by sharing the encryption key that would allow investigators to crack down on criminals; free speech advocates argue that this could lead to similar requests from governments against political opponents.

Yet, if indeed, as French authorities claim, Telegram is being used to circulate images of child sex abuse, that would undermine the platform's stated commitment to privacy. The lack of content moderation in the name of enabling free speech does not justify any compromise on the safety, security and privacy of individuals, especially children. The ban on X in Brazil poses a similar question. It is dangerous for democracy when judges and governments start censoring social platforms that are not aligned with their views. Yet, can they stand by idly if social networks like X, according to Brazil, perpetuate known falsehoods and hate speech? There is also the question of law: Brazil's ban on X is tied to the latter’s alleged refusal to follow a court order. Multinational companies cannot expect a different set of rules vis-à-vis those regulating local firms. All of this highlights the challenges of the modern information landscape. Free speech, privacy and respect for the rule of law must all be defended. The question that still needs an answer is how.