Government passes social media blocking amendment

During a session, the government passed an amendment allowing the administrative authority to block content from social media platforms when calls for violence and looting are disseminated. This amendment caused anger among the left-wing senators, who condemned it as an authoritarian overreach.

Amendment adds to Senate tensions

The examination of the "casseurs-payeurs" bill in the Senate was already explosive, but the government's amendment on the possibility of cutting social media networks added more fuel to the fire. Defended in session by the Minister of the Interior, Laurent Nunez, amendment number 94 aimed to expand the scope of intervention of Pharos to include incitement, on social media, to provoke attacks on life, theft, destruction, among others, when such content is likely to cause serious disruption to public order.

Amendment outlines content removal rules

Concretely, it allows the administrative authority to request hosts and editors to remove "content that directly causes voluntary attacks on life, voluntary attacks on the physical integrity of individuals, sexual assaults, thefts, destructions, damages, and deterioration, when such content is likely to cause serious disruption to public order" within a 24-hour period.

Supporters defend the measure

"Many publications, for example on TikTok, called for infractions on October 18. It is essential to remove these publications, which are massive in nature," said Olivier Bitz, the rapporteur of the text and in favor of the measure.

Context of protests and government concerns

In the context of demonstrations against the high cost of living and the student movement, the government was increasingly openly questioning the need to block social networks when they allow the dissemination of calls to commit infractions. According to the media Blast, Sebastien Lecornu had reportedly sent a letter to various phone operators on October 22, informing them of the possibility of temporarily cutting social networks "depending on the operational context."

Critics call the amendment anti-libertarian

"Indeed, this is an additional shift towards administrative measures that are anti-libertarian," said Thomas Dossus, an ecologist senator from Rhône. "Yes, this is an additional shift towards administrative measures that are anti-libertarian," added Audrey Linkenheld, a socialist senator from Nord. Fabien Gay, a communist senator from Seine-Saint-Denis, warned that this text could allow the government to "control social movements without even needing to amend the Constitution."

Centrist senators raise concerns

Several centrist senators, including Loïc Hervé and Catherine Morin-Desailly, also expressed concern over the drafting of this amendment. "It would be necessary to define in law what constitutes a call to insurrection. The drafting of the amendment is too complex. Like a number of us who have worked on the DSA and Sren, I will vote against this amendment," explained Loïc Hervé.

Critics highlight vague wording

Moreover, the main opponents of the measure did not fail to highlight the rewriting of the amendment just minutes before its examination in session. "The amendment is so vague that it is corrected in session," said Audrey Linkenheld. Initially, the government relied on a 2021 European regulation allowing the administrative authority to request the removal of terrorist content or content calling for the commission of a terrorist act within an hour. The new wording now refers to Article 6-1 of the 2004 law on confidence in the digital economy.

Constitutionality questioned

Beyond the ranks of the left, Catherine Morin-Desailly questions the constitutionality of the measure. "The Council of State recalled, during the suspension of TikTok in New Caledonia in 2024, that such a measure is only justified in exceptional circumstances and for a limited duration," said the senator from Seine-Maritime. Following the riots in May 2024, the government had blocked the use of TikTok in New Caledonia. In a decision dated April 2025, the Council of State recognized that the gravity of the disturbances could justify a temporary interruption of the social network but that it had to be limited in time and used only in the absence of other measures less intrusive to fundamental freedoms.

Amendment passes with majority support

Despite this, the amendment was largely supported by the majority in the Senate as well as several other groups, notably the group Les Indépendants or the group RN/UDR. "Be careful! We are voting a text for today, but also for tomorrow. But tomorrow, this text could be in the hands of a much more authoritarian and altogether non-republican regime," warned Fabien Gay.