Military personnel, all armies and ranks ("the generation of fire.") warns of the prospect of a civil war in France.

Their warning was published on May 9 in Valeurs Actuelles, like the previous warning from French generals.

Here excerpts in English from their letter:
 
We are from what the newspapers have called "the generation of fire." Men and women, active military personnel, all armies and ranks, of all views, we love our country. These are our only titles of glory. And if we cannot, by law, express ourselves openly, it is equally impossible for us to remain silent.
 
Afghanistan, Mali, Central Africa or elsewhere, a number of us have experienced enemy fire. Some left comrades there. They offered temselves to destroy the Islamism that you are making concessions to on our soil.

Yes, our elders [the French generals who published the first warning] are right about the substance in their text, in its entirety. We see violence in our towns and villages. We see “communautarisme” settling in the public space, in public debate. We see the hatred of France and its history becoming the norm.
 
It may not be for the military to say that, you will argue. Quite the contrary: because we are apolitical in our assessments of situation, it is a professional observation that we deliver. For we have seen this decline in many countries in crisis. It precedes the collapse. It heralds chaos and violence, and contrary to what you have here this chaos and violence will not come from a "military statement" but from a civil insurgency.

Yes, if a civil war breaks out, the army will maintain order on its own soil, because it will be asked. It's even the definition of the civil war. No one can want such a terrible situation, our elders no more than we do, but yes, again, the civil war is brewing in France and you know it perfectly well.

Take action, ladies and gentlemen. …It is about the survival of our country, of your country.

On Monday 10 the letter had been signed by 211,189.

Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme;” not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. (John Stuart Mill: On Liberty)

Why Trump was blocked from Facebook
At 4:21pm Eastern Standard Time January 6, 2021, the day a mob of protesters forced their way into the Capitol, President Trump posted a video on Facebook saying:

“I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace.”

At 5:41pm Facebook removed Trump’s post from Facebook.

At 6:07 pm when police were battling with the protesters in and around the Capitol President Trump posted a written statement on Facebook:
“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love in peace. Remember this day forever!
A few minutes later, at 6:15 pm Facebook also blocked this post and banned Trump from Facebook for 24 hours

On January 7, after further reviews of President Trump’s postings, Facebook blocked President Trump from posting on Facebook “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”

Referral to Facebooks’ Oversight Board
On January 21, 2021 one day after the inauguration of President Biden Facebook announced that it had referred the blocking of President Trump on Facebook to its own so-called Oversight Board.
In explaining its actions to the Oversight Board Facebook states that Trump’s posts were removed for violating “its policy prohibiting praise, support, and representation of designated Violent Events.”
What praise and support might that be in Trump’s case?
In relation to the first post Facebook acknowledge that while Mr. Trump did ask people in his video to “go home in peace,” he also reiterated allegations that the election was fraudulent and suggested a common purpose in saying, “I know how you feel.”Facebook also concluded that the phrase “We love you. You’re very special” was intended as praise of people who were breaking the law by storming the Capitol.”
In relation to the second post on January 6 Facebook believes that it contained praise of the event, as Mr. Trump referred to those who stormed the Capitol as “great patriots,” and urged people to “[r]emember this day forever.
There we have it. The offending terms were: “I know how you feel.”; We love you. You’re very special”; “great patriots” and “[r]emember this day forever.” Facebook also referred to the protests and storming of the Capitol on the very same day. They do not mention that Trump also said: “We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt.”
Facebook explains that it upheld the indefinite suspension of Trump after President Biden’s inauguration “partly due to analysis that violence connected to Mr. Trump had not passed.” It cites National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin issued on January 27 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that described a heightened threat environment across the United States.”
Furthermore, even when the risk of violence has diminished “it may be appropriate to permanently block Mr. Trump’s ability to post based on the seriousness of his violations on January 6, his continued insistence that Mr. Biden’s election was fraudulent, his sharing of other misinformation, and the fact that he is no longer president.”

The “rulings” of the Oversight Board
The Oversight Board first of all found that “Facebook’s decision to impose restrictions on Mr. Trump’s accounts was justified,” including extending those restrictions on January 7.
“The posts in question violated the rules of Facebook and Instagram that prohibit support or praise of violating events, including the riot that was then underway at the U.S. Capitol.”
But importantly also found that “it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an indefinite suspension.” “Facebook did not follow a clear published procedure in this case. Facebook’s normal account-level penalties for violations of its rules are to impose either a time-limited suspension or to permanently disable the user’s account. The Board finds that it is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored.”
The Board therefore decided that Facebook must re-examine the arbitrary penalty of indefinite suspension within six months and decide the appropriate penalty. “Facebook’s normal account-level penalties for violations of its rules are to impose either a time-limited suspension or to permanently disable the user’s account. The Board finds that it is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored.”
The Oversight Board also issued non-binding policy advisory statements. Of note is the advice that Facebook should look into its own role. “Facebook should assess what influence it had and assess what changes it could enact to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for adverse impacts in future.”
Furthermore, Facebook should address the problem that “Facebook’s penalty system is not sufficiently clear to users and does not provide adequate guidance to regulate Facebook’s exercise of discretion. “

Look! What is it? It’s an arbitrator, It’s a supreme court,” No it’s … the Oversight Board!
According to Zuckerberg it can be imagined as some sort of structure, “almost like a Supreme Court, that is made up of independent folks who don’t work for Facebook, who ultimately make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in a community that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world.”
Sounds rather naïve, doesn’t it? Social norms and values of people all around the world are certainly not the same. Take social norms on Muslim country, they certainly cannot be expected to be the same as social norms in liberal Western democracy.
Thus, it would seem that Zuckerberg is imagining something that cannot be realized, but perhaps what he really meant that was that the “final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech” should be made according to what Facebook defines as acceptable speech.
The charter of Oversight Board says “The purpose of the board is to protect free expression by making principled, independent decisions about important pieces of content and by issuing policy advisory opinions on Facebook's content policies.”
So, on what grounds did the board decide that Facebook’s decision to impose restrictions on Mr. Trump’s free speech was justified?
The decision sems to be mainly based upon the interpretation and opinion that Trump’s posts violated Facebook’s Community Standard on Violence and Incitement, stating that “The Board’s decisions do not concern the human rights obligations of states or application of national laws, but focus on Facebook’s content policies, its values and its human rights responsibilities as a business.” Standards the board found are supported by international guidelines as found in ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and the UN’s Rabat Plan of Action (on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence).
“To understand the risk posed by the January 6 posts, the Board assessed Mr. Trump’s Facebook and Instagram posts and off-platform comments since the November election. In maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. On January 6, Mr. Trump’s words of support to those involved in the riot legitimized their violent actions.
Although the messages included a seemingly perfunctory call for people to act peacefully, this was insufficient to defuse the tensions and remove the risk of harm that his supporting statements contributed to. It was appropriate for Facebook to interpret Mr. Trump’s posts on January 6 in the context of escalating tensions in the United States and Mr. Trump’s statements in other media and at public events.”
Let’s dissect the boards argument.
In the Board’s interpretation and opinion, it refers to the “unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action.” Whether Trump’s narrative was unfounded could certainly not be known for sure by Facebook on January 6 and 7.
How can it be shown with any degree of certainty that Trump “created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible?” or that “words of support to those involved in the riot legitimized their violent actions?”
Facebook found “We love you. You’re very special” was intended as praise of people who were breaking the law by storming the Capitol, but were these words directed at them or to the more peaceful protest in the beginning.
What is to be made of the board’s opinion that Trumps’ call to act peacefully was “seemingly perfunctory” and thus not sincere or insisting enough.
Also, it must be asked, what was Facebook’s own role in stirring up protests “how Facebook’s news feed and other features impacted the visibility of Mr. Trump’s content.”
 
Biased decisions?
Does Facebook and perhaps even the Oversight Board’s decisions show political and ideological bias?
The question would seem relevant when comparing the Trump’s expressions with those of Maxine Waters, U.S. Democratic Representative for California's 43rd congressional district.
On April 17, 2021 Maxine Waters visited at a protest rally held at Brooklyn Center in Minnesota over the death of the black Daunte Wright. She referred to the ongoing George Floyd court case and said “We’re looking for a guilty verdict,” … And we’re looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd, if nothing does not happen, then we know that we’ve got to not only stay in the street, but we’ve got to fight for justice.”
A clear case of a speech that might lead “to serious risk of violence” one would think, and uttered in a situation where the potential for violence was imminent.
Maxine Waters’ incitement even led the judge in the Derek Chauvin court case to tell the defence attorney: “I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."
If Trump’s expressions violated Facebook’s Community Standards, Maxine Waters’ expressions unequivocally also violated Facebook’s Community Standards.  But as far as can be ascertained neither the videos nor her expressions were removed from Facebook.
Leading to the suspicion that Facebook definitions of and decisions in relation to free speech must be influenced by a left leaning bias. Although perhaps mostly in Western countries. While the Facebook bias might perhaps be adaptable to circumstances in in countries dominated by different political, ideological and religious views.


Should Facebook and its Oversight Board define free speech?
Facebook is supposed to have 2.6 billion (in EU terms milliard) users on a monthly basis, although a certain percentage are fake user accounts, the guestimate is around 5%.  The U.S. alone has around 225 million users, more than two thirds of a population of around 333 million.
Thus, it must surely have an enormous impact on what one may call opinion building, not the least in the U.S., where Facebook strangely enough may even have played decisive role when   Trump won the presidential election in 2016, and now perhaps also in Biden’s success.  And what about its role in the MeToo campaigns, the Black Lives Matter protests, identity politics, cancel culture and the growing political divisions in the US.
Facebook may in fact be seen as having monopoly power in the public discourse.
No wonder then that is has been argued that “no private monopoly has the right to turn away customers.” The argument being that such monopolies must serve all on fair and equal terms.
The counter argument being of course that Facebook as private company must be able to decide who it accepts as customers and on what terms.
But Facebook seems to want to have it both ways, insisting on the right to ban people from using Facebook, but also acting as a community “that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world.”  Now even with an independent Oversight Board, although in reality the Board’s power is limited to decisions on individual case and giving policy advice.  Not really having a say in internal workings of Facebook, it’s algorithms or the way it may influence wide ranging aspects of political decision making in the World.
The Oversight Board wouldn’t even know if Facebook were using political and ideological components in the algorithms that it applies, “with conservative content and users being more likely to fall afoul of these restrictions.”
Without knowledge of and ability to influence the internal workings of how Facebooks filters free speech and users, the Oversight Board’s role is rather superficial.  Perhaps just providing Facebook’s with a false gloss or cloak of impartiality, which is certainly unwarranted.
What would seem to be self-evident is that a private monopoly, even with an adjudicator in the shape of a so-called “supreme court” with questionable power, should not be allowed to continue to censure public discourse with its own definition of free speech.
Facebook should be subject to common carrier principles. According to U.S. law:  “It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.”
If Facebook was subject to common carrier principles, say like telecommunication companies, it would presumably mean that it would have to have a government license to operate and thus be regarded as a public utility subject to government regulation.
Perhaps even subject to challenges with reference to the First Amendment, which “protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.