Why so much interest in regulating social media and not tributes to terrorists?

Lately there have been very disparate political pronouncements regarding social media and freedom of expression.

While allowing tributes to terrorists, Sánchez launches his digital censorship
Pedro Sánchez attacks the right to privacy and compares using a social network with buying a gun

In January, as part of his campaign in favor of censorship and against the right to anonymity online (which is part of our right to privacy), Pedro Sánchez compared using a social network to buying a gun. A few days later, the socialist leader announced a new state agency to control the internet, comparing it to the "Wild West." He said this at a time when, coincidentally, social media has become a very important channel for channeling the discontent and criticism of millions of Spaniards in the face of the corruption scandals and abuses of the Sánchez government.

In this same vein, in May 2024, Sánchez had already announced his intention to control the media with measures very similar to those of Putin's dictatorship, such as establishing a registry of journalists. All of this is happening at a time when Spain is enduring increasingly hyper-regulatory levels akin to those of a dictatorship, the result of a purely invasive approach to politics by the State towards society and, specifically, towards the fundamental rights of its citizens.

It must be said that this support for censorship is not exclusive to Sánchez and his party, the PSOE. Yesterday, former Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, of the People's Party, supported regulating social media with this curious argument: "Social media has a great capacity to spread extremist and radical messages, to insult and to slander." Rajoy added: "There are many brave people who, hiding behind anonymity, say things they would absolutely be incapable of saying to someone's face. On social media, it sometimes seems that the opinion of a fanatic is worth more than the opinion of a Nobel laureate." The paradox is that Rajoy said this right after criticizing "excessive regulation."

It must be said that several of the arguments Rajoy has used against social media could be applied to demonstrations, political rallies, conferences, and other forms of exercising freedom of expression. To begin with, it is false that social media is unregulated: of course it is. Proof of this lies in the convictions that have been handed down so far for defamation, slander, and threats made by various individuals through social media.

What some are criticizing on social media is the very essence of freedom of speech. Is Rajoy going to prohibit anyone from expressing an opinion on social media, in a newspaper, or at a demonstration that contradicts a Nobel laureate? On what grounds? Does freedom of speech end where the opinions—sometimes contradictory—of Nobel laureates begin? It is certainly regrettable to hear a former prime minister spout such nonsense.

The most curious thing is that both Rajoy and Sánchez had many years to regulate tributes to terrorists and they didn't. Let's remember, in case some have forgotten. In 2017, with Rajoy in power, there were 48 tributes to ETA terrorists in Spain. After Sánchez came to power, these tributes have increased. The socialist leader was so obsessed with confusing social media with weapons that he had neither the time nor the inclination to prohibit tributes to those who used real guns to kill.

This Wednesday, the Interior Committee of the Congress of Deputies approved a ban on tributes to terrorists, with the PSOE and its allies voting against it — the same ones who get hysterical calling for censorship of social media because opinions they don't like are expressed there. That's the key. The socialists want to regulate social media to control what Spaniards say and limit freedom of expression. Tributes to ETA terrorists have the support of Bildu, Sánchez's allies in Congress. That explains their double standards in this whole matter.

---

Photo: Camilo Jiménez.