"Casseurs-payeurs", continued: the Senate hands Pharos the power to remove calls to violence, but free speech must keep its judge

During the night of Tuesday 27 to Wednesday 28 October, the Senate passed the so-called "casseurs-payeurs" ("rioters pay") bill by 229 votes to 105, reports Public Sénat. The text leaves the upper house considerably toughened. But it is a government amendment, added during the debate, that now draws attention: it extends the powers of the Pharos platform to content posted on social networks that would call for violence, looting or destruction.

What the Senate voted

According to Public Sénat, amendment no. 94, defended by Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez, allows the administrative authority to ask hosts and publishers to remove, within 24 hours, content directly inciting attacks on life, theft or destruction, when it is likely to seriously disturb public order. According to Journal du Net and Univers Freebox, it was adopted by 219 votes to 115. A platform refusing to comply would face blocking by internet service providers or delisting by search engines.

The initial version went further. Modelled on the 2021 European regulation on terrorist content, it provided for removal within one hour for the most serious calls, notably to insurrection. The government dropped it, citing, according to Journal du Net, doubts about its compliance with the Constitution and European law. The text now refers to article 6-1 of the 2004 law on confidence in the digital economy, Public Sénat specifies.

The same bill makes participants in a violent gathering jointly liable for the damage, up to 10,000 euros per person, and authorises the seizure of part of their social benefits, extended by senators to the RSA minimum income. It must now be examined by the National Assembly.

A weighty context

This vote comes a few days after a revelation by the media outlet Blast, picked up notably by Clubic: on 22 October, Matignon reportedly asked the four major operators by letter to stand ready to suspend Snapchat, TikTok and Instagram during the 24 October mobilisation, a measure presented as exploratory. According to the same sources, the operators expressed strong technical and legal reservations, pointing out that a simple VPN is enough to bypass such filtering. No shutdown was triggered and the day passed off calmly. Clubic reports no denial from Matignon.

The arguments on each side

The government points to the looting of 17 and 18 October, partly organised online according to it. "We are not talking about shutting down social networks," Laurent Nuñez assured the chamber, quoted by Public Sénat. For LR senator Damien Michallet, offenders must be "disarmed" right down to their use of platforms, reports Journal du Net. The right, a large share of the centrists and the RN voted in favour.

Opposite, the ecologist Thomas Dossus denounces "the continuation of a security-driven and authoritarian drift", the socialist Audrey Linkenheld a slide towards "liberticidal" measures. The communist Fabien Gay fears that such a tool could one day be used to control social movements. Doubts also run through the centre: Loïc Hervé calls for a legal definition of incitement to insurrection and announced he would vote against, while Catherine Morin-Desailly questions the constitutionality of the measure, again according to Public Sénat.

Analysis: public order is not the enemy of freedom, arbitrariness is

Let us say it plainly: a state that lets calls to looting circulate fails in its first duty. Looted shopkeepers, residents of damaged neighbourhoods, peaceful demonstrators whose cause is discredited are entitled to that protection. The Gaullist tradition does not confuse the authority of the state with weakness in the face of violence.

But the authority of the state is also the rule of law. The Conseil d'État recalled this on 1 April 2025, when it ruled the suspension of TikTok in New Caledonia unlawful: such a measure is admissible only in exceptional circumstances, on a provisional basis, when no less restrictive solution is available, and for a limited period. Yet the notion of a serious disturbance of public order is broad. Between an explicit call to loot a shop and a virulent message urging people to block everything, the line will be drawn by the administration, in a hurry, at the very moment a social movement is in full swing.

This is where the problem lies. A democracy can quickly remove manifestly illegal content, provided that a judge can check quickly too. The available reports do not specify what rapid judicial review would accompany these removals. The threat of blocking an entire platform also changes the scale: it is no longer a message being removed, but a space of expression being closed for millions of users.

Finally, the method is worrying. Preparing a shutdown through a confidential letter, then legislating by amendment in a text devoted to compensation for damage, is not how the Republic should touch freedoms as fundamental as those of expressing oneself and being informed.

A proposal

The National Assembly now has the upper hand. It can keep the objective while framing it: a precise list of the offences targeted, review by an independent qualified person on the model of what exists for terrorist content, an urgent appeal decided within 48 hours, an explicit ban on any general blocking of a network, and a public evaluation after one year. The question put to MPs is simple: do we want a tool against rioters, or a switch left in the hands of whoever holds power tomorrow?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.