Claire Poirson’s Interview – Should Social Media Be Blocked in Response to Riots? “It Would Be Disproportionate to Punish Everyone”
Can the Government block access to social media to restore public order?
As the debate over the potential blocking of social media platforms resurfaces in the context of urban unrest, our partner Claire Poirson was interviewed by Le Parisien on the extent of the Government’s legal powers in this area.
The answer requires some nuance: blocking access to a social media platform is not legally impossible. However, such a measure may only be taken as a last resort, in exceptional circumstances and subject to particularly stringent conditions.
Freedom remains the principle
The freedom to access online communication services and to express oneself through them is protected by Article 11 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
Except in situations expressly provided for by law, the administrative authorities therefore have no general power to suspend access to an online platform.
However, in its Assembly decision of 1 April 2025 concerning the blocking of TikTok in New Caledonia (Conseil d’État, Ass., 1 April 2025, No. 494511, LDH and Others), the French Conseil d’État held that access may exceptionally be interrupted on the basis of the judicial doctrine of “exceptional circumstances” (circonstances exceptionnelles).
A strictly circumscribed exception
The situation must be particularly serious, the ordinary legal mechanisms available must be insufficient to address it, and the measure must be indispensable.
More importantly, a complete interruption may only be contemplated where no less restrictive technical solution capable of protecting rights and freedoms is immediately available.
Any such interruption must also be temporary: it may only last for the time necessary to identify and implement a more targeted solution, such as restricting access to certain functionalities.
This was precisely the issue that led to the annulment of the decision to block TikTok in New Caledonia.
The Conseil d’État acknowledged both the exceptional seriousness of the violence and the role played by TikTok in the rapid dissemination of content inciting violence. It even accepted that a temporary interruption of the service could initially have been justified.
However, completely blocking the service for an indefinite period, until public order had been restored, went too far.
The measure was disproportionate.
What about a state of emergency?
A declaration of a state of emergency is not a prerequisite: the doctrine of exceptional circumstances constitutes an autonomous legal basis.
It must, however, be distinguished from Article 11(II) of the French Law of 3 April 1955 on the state of emergency, which specifically allows the Minister of the Interior, during a state of emergency, to interrupt certain online communication services that incite the commission of terrorist acts or glorify such acts.
A crisis therefore does not set aside the requirement of proportionality. On the contrary, it places proportionality at the heart of judicial review.
As Claire Poirson explains in Le Parisien, the Prime Minister may exceptionally block access to a social media platform, but only as a last resort and on a temporary basis. The Government must continue to seek less restrictive alternatives: it cannot simply cut off access until public order has been restored.
