A TikTok block reversed after the fact, but authorized in principle? This Tuesday, April 1, the Council of State ruled in a decision published today that the suspension of TikTok ordered by the Prime Minister in May 2024 in New Caledonia was not legal. But the highest administrative court validates for the first time the fact that authorities are indeed authorized to block social networks under certain conditions. In formal session, the administrative judges analyzed the merits of several appeals filed against the government's decision by individuals and associations, including the Human Rights League and La Quadrature du Net.
The facts date back to May 2024.On May 15, 2024, the Prime Minister decided to block TikTok in the archipelago, which was in the grip of riots that left several people dead, due to the "exceptional circumstances." This is a jurisprudential theory that authorizes the State, in the event of serious and unforeseen events, to act outside the bounds of ordinary legality.
The Government then argued that the social network was used by rioters for rallies and actions. The platform was "used to disseminate content inciting the use of violence and spreading very quickly, given the algorithms used by this network among its users," the administrative judges noted. Such a blocking of a social network, an unprecedented decision in France, had been contested in summary proceedings and on the merits by several associations, who considered that this ban was excessive and an infringement of fundamental freedoms.
Three conditions to be met for a blocking of a social network
And for the first time, the Council of State explained, this Tuesday, April 1, that in certain circumstances, such a blocking could be entirely legal. The French authorities are fully entitled to suspend a social network, but only under three conditions, explains the highest administrative court:
- the blocking measure must be "essential to deal with events of particular gravity",
- there are no immediate "alternative measures less prejudicial to rights and freedoms", and
- the interruption must be taken for a limited period necessary to research and implement these alternative measures.
It is this third condition that was allegedly not met. The Prime Minister, in May 2024, had issued "a pure and simple ban", "total", "for an indefinite period", the administrative judges note. However, the duration of the blocking of the social network must be fixed from the outset, the duration decided being that necessary for "the search and implementation, where appropriate in conjunction with the service provider, of alternative measures other than pure and simple interruption".
"A Pyrrhic Victory"
Without a limited duration, and without seeking alternatives that are less intrusive to freedoms, such as "the blocking of certain functionalities", the Council of State therefore judges that " The blocking of TikTok in May 2024 was unlawful, as it caused a disproportionate infringement of rights and freedoms."
While the lawyer for one of the applicants, Vincent Brengarth, welcomes the decision for the associations, he denounces on his X account "a Pyrrhic victory." The decision "recognizes the possibility for the Government, in exceptional circumstances, to temporarily interrupt access to a social network," he regrets. An argument repeated by other specialists, who fear that future governments will seize on this new case law to block social networks.
Source: Decision of the Council of State of Tuesday, April 1, 2025
0 Comments