The Telegram gossip, which was written in four chapters, did not even last 72 hours. It started late on Friday with the order of the National Court to block the social network, following a complaint by Mediaset, Antena 3 and Movistar Plus for having shared audiovisual material protected by copyright. The controversy was served. The next day, Judge Santiago Pedraz, in his attempt to temporarily overturn Telegram in Spain – something that even Vladimir Putin has not achieved in Russia – gave telecommunications operators three hours to comply with the order, counting from the time it arrived in their mailboxes. It didn’t take that long. Yesterday, the final chapters were rushed: in the early hours of the morning, Pedraz suspended the blockade pending a police report. And once received, it permanently suspended the blockade.
After the media and social uproar generated over the weekend, Santiago Pedraz, in a rare act of providence, requested the general information office – the intelligence unit of the National Police – to inform him “about the Telegram platform (features, etc.), as well as the impact it may have on users” the temporary suspension.
In other words, the precautionary measure that Saturday was “appropriate”, “proportionate” and “necessary” was taken without knowing from experts in the field the collision with the more than eight million users of Telegram in Spain In the scant paragraph of the order signed by the magistrate, no details were specified as to what was the deadline for the National Police to deliver the report. It was immediate. The cybercrime unit of the information police knows all the intricacies of this platform inside out.
A few minutes after 2:00 p.m., the final pushback came. The magistrate agreed to cancel the precautionary blocking order because he considered it – now – “excessive” and “not proportional”. The same as two days before was “suitable”, “proportional” and “necessary”. In his letter, the judge of the National Court explains that a “notorious fact” has been established that cannot be ignored, which is nothing more than the possible impact of multiple users in the face of an eventual suspension. Eight million users. With this, he admits, he must consider whether the measure is proportional or not.
Pedraz notes in the interlocutory that “it is known” that Telegram is used for criminal activities. Not only do their channels host audiovisual content protected by copyright, but violent material, child pornography or terrorism can be found in their bowels. In fact, most operations of the anti-terrorist fight against the propaganda of organizations such as the Islamic State or Al-Qaida take place on Telegram.
It is also the perfect tool for the opposition to regimes such as the Russian or Iranian to organize their mobilizations or for the sale of drugs or prostitution. Telegram, unlike WhatsApp, has always been characterized by the fact that it does not provide information about its users to the authorities.
In his writing, the judge talks about the “multiple users” of all kinds – from individuals to companies, including officials – who have chosen to use Telegram because it provides them with “benefits” that other platforms do not provide. And all this under a “protected privacy”. Based on the report delivered by the National Police, it also indicates the economic impact that the precautionary suspension would have for companies or societies that carry out a large part of their communicative activity through this platform, since they consider it a reliable and secure channel against unwanted interventions.
For all this, Pedraz corrects himself by now arguing that the suspension would be a clear detriment to these millions of users who use this messaging application. The Prosecutor’s Office of the National Court also made a previous report in favor of the temporary blocking of Telegram. The magistrate concludes by saying that it is not about freedom of expression or information, “but whether the measure is proportional or not. And what he says he finally finds is that the measure would be excessive and not proportional. That is why there will continue to be a free bar of content on Telegram.
