Constitutional remedies for the digital arena: can we ban Telegram?

The digital revolution threatens constitutional democracy by creating an arena where political power can maximize its authority with little accountability. In such context, Telegram has emerged as the new stronghold for right-wing supporters. The lack of strict governance mechanisms casts doubts on its content moderation. In this sense, users have felt free within the platform to share anything, knowing that they cannot be held responsible. An interesting question has arisen: are there constitutional grounds for shutting down Telegram? The response challenges the definition of constitutional sovereignty. However, if freedom cannot be used as an excuse for violating the law, it cannot be used to safeguard a deregulated platform in which the law is being actively violated. Otherwise, accepting the platform’s refusal to cooperate would account to constitutional impotence to face the digital arena. Therefore, banning the application becomes not only justified but necessary.