Blocking Telegram is a serious attack on freedom of speech. It's sad that this is not an isolated incident.

In Telegram, we are aware of a large amount of material that violates intellectual property rights. However, for many of us, this does not matter. Most of us use Telegram as a messaging app. According to the National Commission on the Market and Competition, 18% of Spaniards use Telegram for messaging. That's about 8.5 million citizens. However, this was not taken into account when blocking Telegram, as approved by Judge Santiago Pedras. The blocking of Telegram does not mention the potential impact of such a decision on millions of users. Here are the reasons why this preliminary measure was taken. The blocking of Telegram has caused a unanimous opinion among all lawyers specializing in the Internet. According to experts, this is an absolutely disproportionate measure.

First, let's look at Judge Pedras's justification. He notes that "the insufficient cooperation of the authorities of the Virgin Islands, who were only approached with a request to interact with those responsible for the social network Telegram, requires the preventive measures proposed by the private plaintiffs." He states that blocking is the only possible solution: "The proposed preventive measures are the only possible measures in light of the insufficient cooperation of the Virgin Islands authorities. There are no other measures that can prevent the recurrence of the reported facts." For the judge, the order to block is the only way to prevent further dissemination of Movistar's content. The law he relies on is the Criminal Procedure Code, which states in Article 13 about "the temporary cessation of services provided by such content, or the temporary blocking of one or the other, when they are located abroad." There is a discussion on the merits. It is not denied that the judge has the authority to make this blocking, as the Criminal Procedure Code provides for such a measure. However, it is not taken into account that at no point is the impact on the fundamental right to freedom of expression considered. The justification of proportionality is addressed in a couple of lines. Literally, all the certainty that the judge provides is the following: "The proposed preliminary measure is justified by the fact that it is necessary to stop the reported violation, proportional and suitable for achieving the goal of the measure, since it is impossible to use other types of actions expressed in the Criminal Procedure Code to achieve this goal." And that's it. We need to block an app used by millions of users just to prevent the dissemination of copyrighted video material. Awaiting the next step.