European censorship, Elon Musk and the Telegram arrest

France’s arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov over the weekend has made the Russian-born entrepreneur a cause célèbre for free speech, but is his detention or exaltation warranted? Hard to know, which speaks to the problem with Europe’s censorship regime.

Conservatives in the U.S. are rallying around Mr. Durov. “Liberté Liberté! Liberté?” Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted. Chris Pavlovski, CEO of the right-wing video platform Rumble, said the arrest “crossed a red line.” French President Emmanuel Macron dismissed claims that Mr. Durov is being politically targeted, but the government has offered few details about the reasons for his arrest.

Telegram’s largely hands-off approach to moderating content has made it popular among terrorists as well as genuine political dissidents. Journalists use the app to communicate with sources, though terrorist groups and authoritarian governments also use it to spread propaganda, as Russia has in Ukraine.

Paris prosecutors say Mr. Durov was detained in relation to an investigation into criminal activity on the platform, including child pornography, drug trafficking, money laundering and its refusal to cooperate with law enforcement. Those are serious offenses if true.

But many suspect this is merely a pretext because Europe is also imposing speech controls on other media platforms. France in 2020 sought to require sites to remove hate speech, though most of its law was blocked by the country’s top court. The European Parliament then stepped into the breach with its Digital Services Act, which compels platforms to curb harmful content, including so-called hate speech, disinformation and propaganda.

The European Commission is even conducting “stress tests” to ensure platforms police harmful content. Companies can be fined up to 6% of their worldwide revenue if deemed non-compliant. Thierry Breton, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and a former French telecom executive, is wielding the law as a cudgel to censor speech worldwide.

Consider his threat against Mr. Musk mere hours before Mr. Musk’s recent live interview on X.com with Donald Trump. “I understand that you are currently doing a stress test of the platform” and “in this context, I am compelled to remind you of the due diligence obligations set out in the Digital Services Act (DSA),” Mr. Breton wrote.

“Amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming” might “generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security,” he warned. He added, ominously, that formal proceedings are already underway against X under the DSA related to “dissemination of illegal content and the effectiveness of the measures taken to combat disinformation.” He underscored that regulators will “not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox. . . should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from serious harm.”

This is thuggish stuff. European regulators are trying to meddle in the U.S. presidential election. Yet the missive drew nary a peep from the Biden Administration. Does the White House support Europe’s efforts to censor American political speech? It’s a fair question given support by President Biden nominees for Europe’s digital regulation.

U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter this spring averred that “every government has the right and the responsibility” to target illegal conduct that violates the laws of its jurisdiction. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai put out a statement agreeing with the EU’s “view that online platforms should exercise greater responsibility” in content moderation.

All of this explains why Mr. Durov’s arrest is inciting skepticism. American conservatives in particular worry that Europeans are trying to make an example out of Mr. Durov to drive more internet censorship with a wink and nod by the Biden Administration. Paris could dispel such suspicions by providing more details about its investigation, and the White House ought to encourage this.

Trust in government is declining in democracies around the world, and leaders don’t help themselves or their countries when they blur lines between criminal conduct and speech they find offensive.