Europe To Force Right of Reply On Internet Communication 825
David Buck writes "Today, the Council of Europe (an influential quasi-governmental body that drafts conventions and treaties) is to
finalize a proposal that would force all Internet news organizations, moderated mailing lists and even web logs (blogs) to allow a right of response to any person or organization they criticize. This would mean that you would be required to post the responses as well as authenticate their origin and make the responses available for some period of time. This will likely have a chilling effect on Internet communication (at least in Europe)."
Newspapers too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isnt this the Slashdot way? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least the law doesnt say you have to reply to your critics.
At least you only have to hyperlink to them.
Of course, what could happen is that we might see a floweing of civil discussion or we might end up back in the stone age if slashdot flamage starts ending up in mom and pop's daily newspaper reading and everyone launches nukes for retaliation
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
You can still say what you want, you just have to allow the entity you are talking about a chance to reply. This has been 'good practice' in any real journalism for a while. You often see in news stories companyxxx was contacted but refused to reply or gave no comment or something.
No freedom of speach issues here.
why a chilling effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at some of the web pages that make fun of a corporation and got in trouble, they put up the response and then make fun of it, so not much will actually change.
If anything, this might make free speech *more* available, since anyone who says "wal-mart sucks" has a non-onerous way of placating wal-mart without having to take down the text that offended wal-mart.
Recently, we saw Penny-Arcade forced to take down a Strawberry Shortcake parody. What if instead, all they had to do was put American Greetings' response to the parody. And then since they've complied with the law, they wouldn't have had to take the strip down. And what if they could use that compliance as an additional defense?
Re:America seems really terrible... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe - Europe's onto a good thing, actually.
Or the rule is intended simply to make life difficult enough to restore the operational ceiling of free speech to those with the means to publish information in conventional forms. Sort of like requiring a test before voting. On paper a good idea, but in practice a means of controlling participation.
Why is this not good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, if someone starts posting bad things about me or my company somewhere, I really would like to be able to respond to those comments.
My only concern about this is the potential for abuse:
Let's say that I post a "Company X sucks" rant on my web site... Company X sends a response, that according to this law would be required to be posted on my site. Company X's response is in the form of an extremely large file. Company X then has an employee post an anonymous article to Slashdot ( First use of annoying new low in EU! Take a look _here_[annoyingly large file, hosted on my server]). My hosting company kindly then sends me a bill for the bandwidth useage, and I quietly go bankrupt...
What?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in England (well I don't but bear with me here)... and I write something bad about tony blair on my website.
I then have to allow an avenue for tony to be able to "Comment" or "Give his side" on MY WEBSITE???
What the hell? Who comes up with this shit. If someone writes nasty things about you on their blog you write nasty things about them on your blog ... or is this just an American concept?
So what if I say something bad about someone in public, must I then allow them to speakerphone in and explain it from their perspective to my friends?
Maybe I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
For example you will be in hellish hot water as a paper when you just print accusations without even giving the accused so much as a chance to answer to those allegations.
Also, if somebody feels unfairly treated he has a right to a counter statement (Gegendarstellung in German). That's not an elaborate article, but the right to set the facts straight from his/her position. The paper doesn't have to agree with it an can explicitely mention that, but they must print it with few exceptions.
So why the fsck should this be different on the net then in the printed press? Should Mr. Drudge have the right to smear around his rumours, without the right of a potentially badly harmed person to even respond to it? I think not.
By the way: This right to a counter statement is based on Swiss press laws. think Germany is quite comparable.
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's only because that someone has that right that *you* have the right to express your opinion. In a reponsible manner. Otherwise, it's the traditional fight where the stronger (the one with access to more media, here) that will always win.
I see that as being really fair. If you don't see it that way, then I'll call you @#$%!@ and you will have ability to defend against that blatent accusation.
sweeping conclusions (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about being biased. Such absurd and ignorant generalizations from one, admittedly seemingly ill-conceived, law proposal.
One might as well look at the American health care and say, for better or for worse, US lacks all respect for well-being of its citizens.
Re:Newspapers too? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. Actually any traditional media; paper, television or radio. So incuding publications on the net is actually necessary for consistency.
I don't quite see why this is bad. You are responsible for the things you say, no matter by whay medium. You make a publication claming some bullshit about someone else: they can respond with the very same means to the very same audience.
Bad Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Something fundamentally wrong about that. What ever happened to the Marketplace of Ideas? Thomas Jefferson championed it in the USA, but the original idea came from European philosophers (Locke, etc).
Its my web space, I pay for it, why should I be forced to give credence and publicity to someone I am opposed to, on MY dime? They can use their own site and post there.
To parphrase an old hyper-mach-military saying (Kill them all and let God sort them out):
Post them all, and let Google sort them out.
Vox populi, and all that jazz...
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Forced speech denies freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Forced speech is illegal in the US. Also, good practice in journalism isn't law - I think it's clear by now that good journalism isn't law in the US as the jails would be currently full. There has never been any obligation to say anything in the US - outside of heavily regulated media such as TV and radio, where the use of the spectrum is gained at a tradeoff. Courts here have already ruled that the internet doesn't come under such heavy consideration.
So yes, anytime someone tells you what you have to say, there's a freedom of speech issue involved. What Europe is trying to do would be illegal in the US. The US has taken a lot of heat from the international community for what we've done, but here's a case where Europeans are the ones having their rights stolen by their governments.
Re:No Free Speech in Europe (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I think about this when smoking a dooby in parallel with quaffing a beer in public.
I will give it even more thought when I do some skinny dipping in the lake.
But then again: Maybe not...
The limits to Free Speech... (Score:2, Insightful)
The very reason that the original opinion was posted may be because the speaker considers the target's opinion to be damaging or harmful. Allowing such a law opens the door for the curtailing of many freedoms, including the freedom of religion.
Whether you agree or not, a religeous organization has the right to speak out against activities that it views as bad from their own pulpits without the government forcing access to that same pulpit to the opposition. For instance, imagine the outcome if the government forced a mosque to allow a Jew to respond to Islamic accusations made in that mosque.
A newspaper, radio show, web log, or other online site should have the equivalent respect. The site belongs to the owner. They should be able to post what they want, without intervention, as long as it does not spread intentional lies about someone or state secrets that pose a national threat. These types of things are handled via damages through the courts, not via censorship legislation.
As long as the public is free to access the opinion of the oposing side, there should be no such law.
'nuff said...
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Editorialized publications are not required to publish responses, at least not in the USA, though most do some of that via letters to the editor and the like. Many only publish excerpts of such responses. In the USA, requiring that the press publish anything is constitutionally difficult.
But whereas editorialized publications typically have a staff to manage such things, my blog only has me. I don't have time to read all of my hate mail, and I lack the inclination to post it for the world to see. If I blog about spammers in general, I certainly wouldn't appreciate having to post every piece of spam I recieve afterward.
More to the point, since I don't advertise, I have to pay for the bandwidth out of pocket.
Why should I have to pay to post your ill considered opinions in addition to my own?
What this law does is raise the financial threshold (both in terms of time and money required, where time = money) a person must reach to be able to freely put their thoughts, experiences, etc., on the internet.
Re:Newspapers too? (Score:5, Insightful)
For newspapers, for radio and televisision programmes as well. If you report on a person or company, that person or company has the right to insist on their POV being published in an appropriate form. This works fairly well, and has a very low to non-noticeable actual impact on the content or cost of newspapers or programmes.
And I think it is a good idea to apply this to non-printed media as well. If you read the text carefully, you'll see that linking is okay. This more or less automatically solves the authentication problem, keeps editing for space out of the way and does generally the right thing network-wise.
This is not bad at all. In fact, it forces a lot of people into a fair discussion with argument and counterargument, whereas there were only soapboxes and shouting before.
Kristian
Nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
You know... I like the idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people here are taking the stance that the article writer has: Bad Idea(tm). Most seem concerned that this will somehow hamper free speech.
I call bullshit. This will *foster* free speech. Let's be honest; how many of us have gone to blogs or forums where the prevalent opinion is different from our own and been shouted down, had our posts edited or deleted? Apparently not many of you. Well, I have. Almost always it's "It's my site, you'll play by my rules. If I don't like what you have to say, tough shit, you're deleted." Forcing the issue legally allows discussion to take place. Without a right to reply, you merely have one person/group spewing whatever they wish without a dissenting voice.
To deny a right to reply is what will really hamper free speech.
Don't believe me? Well then, don't reply; you don't have the right.
Re:avoid traffic problems; article text (Score:1, Insightful)
how come we never refer to americans/mexicans/candaians/etc as a single entity - yet americans refer to europe.
uk != europe
Germany != europe
France != europe
etc etc etc
Different Laws, freedoms, rights.
G
Re:Man, and it was objective right up to the end.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said. Most of the EU member states have enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights [hri.org] into law. Article 10 of this convention sets out the right to free expression (although qualified in section 2 to include responsibilities).
Your well thought out expression gives me some confort that not all Americans subscribe to the foolishly jingoistic notion that the American construction of liberty is the only valid one.
As a European, I rarely feel myself groaning under the oppressive weight of our democracies, nor do I feel the oxygen of liberty suddenly fill my lungs during my many visits to the USA. It's perfectly possible (indeed admirable) to take pride in your country and culture without sneering at the achievements of others, whose efforts and results may reflect a history of which one is not aware.
--Ng
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the stipulation that the response must be made available for a period of time at least equal to the duration of the original criticism and at least 24 hours? If you have a blog and one day decide you just don't want to maintain it any more (or can't afford the fees associated with hosting, or whatever) and decide to take it down, should you then be required to keep the site running an additional period of time just to be sure the response is available for the same length of time as your original comment or longer?
Won't this help prosecute spammers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Newspapers too -- yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Private property rights. (Score:3, Insightful)
All rights have limitations. Even the right to own property or free speech.
I think you're missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's put this in perspective: What's to stop Microsoft(tm)(c)(r) from posting right here on /. (no points for answering "the moderation system") - but how often does /. get to post on the MS site?
They already have a 'Right of Reply' (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the kind of thing about the European 'way' that gets me; all the crap they do that seems to level the playing field, while the real power remains concentrated in a very small number of people. No wonder the American Jacksonians and Jeffersonians give them fits!
re: two questions (Score:3, Insightful)
you say this as if it's a bad thing. seriously: so what? are people stupid enough to believe everything they read online? if so, well, serves 'em right.
if i were to say, for example, that "bill gates consorts with dark powers in the basement of his home", that's just clearly silly.
similarly, if i said, "george w. bush is a moron as evidenced by his inability to pronounce a very common word correctly" what's the big deal?
people say stupid/ignorant things all the time; just ask rick santorum of pennsylvania.
ed
Re:Newspapers too? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UK, the right to reply is generally 'governed' by the Press Complaints Commission [pcc.org.uk] - note that this isn't actually a legal body, it's an independent body set up by the media in a desperate attempt to regulate themselves just enough to avoid the government doing it for them...
Re:Newspapers too? (Score:3, Insightful)
(I wonder whether the original slashdot submitter actually has seen European ways of doing things or just has read something and found things unfamiliar and thus outrageous. But that, one wonders with a lot of
I actually like it for two reasons, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, it will of necessity force adoption of mechanisms to authoritate message sources, something long overdue and which we shouldn't wait much longer on, lest Microsoft declare itself the authority, as is clearly its intent.
I don't see the basic idea as a threat to free speech at all. On the other hand...
I see potential for enormous practical problems. How can we avoid this mechanism being spammed? Suppose scientology sets up a spider/bot to search for every instance of scientology words on the web and to demand a link to their propaganda?
This could be quite a hassle for many low-resource high-controvery sites and subject them to a coordinated denial of service attack by opponents demanding links that would need to be added manually.
It could also nicely defeat the whole Google algorithm. It's easy to get my site highly rated if I can force inbound links!
In other words, while imho the idea has some basic merit, a great deal of thought needs to go into protecting it from abuse.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Accused rapistVictim site deny to post the reply. Accused rapist go to court and is rebuked because of no diffamation. No reply on the web site.
The rule of thumb is: you can reply if and only if there is evident diffamatory, false information. Not just because you don't like what the other say.
Re:Newspapers too -- yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
2) This does not address statements of fact. If the rapist is convicted, stating so would not be arguable.
3) Your private website is not covered by this law, only professional on-line media.
4) This sounds very much like the marketplace of ideas to me (which, by the way, is a phrase from Karl Marx, not Locke). It allows those with fewer resources to respond to those who own (and market) the presses. Far from chilling, this opens up free speech to those with fewer means.
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:1, Insightful)
And if what they post on your website is libelous against someone else?
Counterstatements are usually limited to factual depictions. "No, Slashdot does not suck" would not have to be published. Things like "we did not mass-moderate" would make a valid counterstatement. Where publishers are required to publish counterstatements today, they are prepended by a disclaimer which says that the presented view is that of the other party and publication is required by law. The publisher is not liable for the contents of the counterstatement, the other party is.
Re:Newspapers too -- yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so. If you do not want the company's reply to be seen, then you are stifling *their* free speech, not the other way round. That's what the right to reply is all about. It *increases* freedom of speech by forcing debate. One-sided spouting-off must have a counter, or it is worthless.
Re:Newspapers too? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can see where the Americans here are astonished at the prospect of laws "forcing " people into "a fair discussion", whereas Europeans would consider it an infringement of their rights to be denied a soapbox in any publication that mentions them.
Obviously I'm comfortable with the values of my own society, but it's important for everyone to realize that there are different visions of rights, and that there are different paths you can take without becoming North Korea or Libya.
Shortsighted People (Score:1, Insightful)
First, it's a GOOD law, coming from a GREAT idea. Why? Simply put - it prevents major media outlets from doing a hachet job on a person.
It's unfortunate that we don't have this in the US, really. I can't count the number of times I've seen Newspaper, and especially TV, pull complete hachet jobs on folks. Tabloids make their LIVING off making outrageous statments that aren't true.
But go ahead. Keep thinking that you should somehow have a right to bash anyone you like without fear of repraisal. Then, when someone with a lot of money and power destroys your career publically (whistleblowers getting thrashed by their company, etc) don't come crying here.
Re:Newspapers too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Other media forms that don't require the publication of a party's response
1. Television. Commericals bash competing products all the time yet aren't required to air a dissenting opinion. It's up to the other party to formulate and publish their own response.
2. Radio. Same as above. Even further, stations themselves (and the DJs) often trash-talk about the other stations in a broadcast market. There's nothing that says they have to give air time to the competition to respond to their heresay.
I think it's sad that lawmakers can't treat new media outlets as NEW, avoiding comparision to the old and attempting to impose laws based on unapplicable standards from a differing venue. Hopefully some key lobbyists will help right this ship and prevent it from setting a precedent that we all come to regret and loathe.
Here's how forced speech is bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that I am forced to post it meets the forced speech standard. As stated by someone else, newspapers ARE NOT required to post letters to the editor - good journalistic practice, yes, but not required. Similarly, blog writers SHOULD post responses in the interest of discussion, but requiring? That's insane.
It allows people to actually exercise their freedom of speech in a way that it matters. If microsoft says that I suck, I can say "no i don't" as many times as I want, nobody will hear it.
That's your problem - freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want, not a medium or a forum. That's like artists who scream censorship when their work isn't subsidized by the government. They're wrong too, in that they are free to create whatever they want, and we're free to ignore it and not pay for it. For what it's worth, though, if MS's opinion of you is slanderous, you have the right to have them stop doing that if it's unfounded - one of your remedies against unfettered US free speech.
Ultimately, this is something that the Supreme Court dealt with a long time ago, check it out if you like. What Europe is doing would not be allowed here. Basically, the US view is "say what you want, however you want, however you can." By your example, get a blog if you want people to listen to you. By the marketplace of ideas, if they don't listen, perhaps it's because no one cares what you, or I, have to say.
As for the news being cleared up by right of response, that's completely infeasible and is the best evidence of the failing of your goal. So if I'm a news show like 60 minutes, I have to publish every response I get? They would cease to have a newscast. In effect, the forced speech requirement kills THEIR right to free speech. That's why it doesn't work, and won't work.
Bottom line is, the US has the most open interpretation of the 1st amendment (at least as it is written, if not implemented). Here, with few exceptions, no one can tell you what not to say - or what TO say, and it's that second part that people frequently forget about, though it's equally important.
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The doctrine of free speech is that I can say pretty much whatever I want (minus stuff like libel, here ignored for brevity). However, free speech does NOT require that YOU *listen* to ME.
What this law effectively does, is that in return for ME saying what I want to, it forces ME to listen to YOU, and furthermore makes sure everyone who listens to ME *also* listens to YOU.
Since when does "free speech" mean that when I speak MY mind, I also have to speak YOUR mind? How is it fair that *I* am required to be *someone else's* mouthpiece?
Further: Imagine if everyone who makes a negative comment about, say, the Church of Scientology, was forced to publish the megaton of CoS rebuttal that would surely follow. And an easy trick for preventing any future negative comments would be to simply make the rebuttal so large that it used up all your allowed webspace. (And imagine the bandwidth bills after CoS drones were then instructed to slashdot your site.)
Imagine if rebuttal processes got into these giant communal blogs like Slashdot?!
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:2, Insightful)
With this law I would have to incur this small amount of work even when I'm right and they're wrong. Why should I have to turn over my forum or take my viewers out of my forum just because someone claims to be wronged?
I much prefer the system where I get to say anything that isn't illegal (basically anything that isn't untruthful and damaging to someone else).
If I say "Ford makes crappy cars" do they get to reply? If Ford posts on their website "#1 in customer satisfaction" does every single Ford customer that disagrees get to reply with equal prominence that Ford would get on all of the "Ford sucks" sites? I doubt it would work out that way.
Basically, you have no right to make me provide you with a forum for your opinion and law that makes me provide you with that forum (at my expense) is wrong.
Uh, no accountability is not the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Europe should give liberalism a shot instead of finding every single possible way around it. Hey you never know, give your people freedom and you might actually not be inclined to slaughter each other and Jews like cattle.
Re:Newspapers too -- yes (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got your examples all wrong. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is against the law not because people aren't allowed to respond (which they could) but because given the special circumstances such an act could lead to a panic and thus injuries or death.
Similarly, slander and libel have nothing to do with whether someone is allowed to reply to the slanderous or libelous comments. They are untrue claims made with malicious intent to destroy another person's reputation. Having a right of reply would mean nothing - if I print a false story about you saying you are a child molester, your little letter of reply "No I'm not" is irrelevant - the damage to your reputation is done. That's why these acts are crimes and are properly dealt with in court.
These laws I think are just further examples of the sort of meaningless, bien-pensant crap that is peddled in European politics today: they don't really do anything of value, they make the leftist elite feel good about themselves, and above all, they provide more fodder for the gargantuan bureaucracy who gets to pick up the mission to make sure that everyone complies with it.
Re:Man, and it was objective right up to the end.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The rest of the responsibilities are fine (and are pretty much enshrined in the US through case law). But morals strikes me as allowing you to push all sorts of things. Mind you, I think that pushing that too hard can contravene article 9, so maybe it's just stopping you from having sex in public
Re:Maybe I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
The Devil is in the details (Score:3, Insightful)
(Then you can demand that they link to your reply to their reply, etc.)
If you are required to supply them with bandwidth, then this opens the gates to many abuses.
So implementation is the key. This could be either good or bad, but it sounds to me as if the probability is that this will mainly benefit society and individuals. (After many recent govt. actions, some cynicism is quite reasonable, however. But I wouldn't want to jump to an assumption that this will be bad against the evidence.)
Re:Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
But the amrican media strikes once again with an absolutely silly story!
(Sorry sensible americans - This is in no way an attempt to troll - but I just feel a bit aggrevated when american media starts to write about silly laws in europe with your current amount of lawyers
Yeah, and we had assurances from Belgium that we had nothing to worry about when their parliament passed their ridiculous universal prosecution law. And what's it been used to do since? To file harrassing court proceedings against US government officials. I'm afraid that there's little reason to trust the Europeans not to try to extend this outside of their own jurisdiction.
Re:Newspapers too -- yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you've got to understand - the eu is a dictator (Score:3, Insightful)
First your assertion that the constitution was written by average people is wrong. The constitution was written for the people by exceptional people.
The EU is being built today with some great people too. The idea that drives them is working together to avoid war, plagues, tension and be stronger as whole. The movement is driven by fear of empires and all the injustice that comes along with it. If everyone works together no one can be the empire that controls all. No more Napoleon, no more Hitler! Just countries working together for the greater good of the majority.
The EU is not scary at all. I find it's a refreshing thing to see some politicians working towards achieving a goal like this one. It encourages democracy and justice in many countries (see Turkey for example). Saying that this is for the politicians I fail to see how you calculated that one!
I'm not saying that everything will work great with the new EU, I'm just saying that it is building up to be great for every EU citizens. You'd be misinformed if you thought otherwise.
Freedom of speech != freedom of publication (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not it at all. You have the right to respond to whoever the hell you want. You can write MS a letter right now. What the law is forcing is PUBLICATION. I now have the responsibility to publish a response for any asshat who reads my blog. Oh, that's great.
And as much as I don't like MS, forcing them to post every response they get to their website is retarded. So now we can slashdot them by all writing them letters they have to publish? Ridiculous. That's a monstrously unfair burden.
The problem that we need to get rid of is the perception that freedom of speech is freedom of publication - it is NOT. MS, and the rest of us, have the right to not care a bit what you think. I mean, I don't really care what you think. I'm sure you feel the same about me, which is reasonable. It's nothing personal, it's just that neither of us have opinions that are all that unique or entertaining that there is any reason why someone should be forced to publish what we say. We're just not that cool. Sorry.
What it comes down to is something we always complain about on slashdot - why should the electronic world be different than the non-electronic? If I write a letter, is the recipient required to nail it to their front door for all to see? Is the newspaper required to run my letter to the editor? Is a news program required to give me airtime?
The answer to all those questions is no, despite that some CHOOSE in SOME instances to do just that. And broadcast TV is the most heavily regulated medium of all, so if they enjoy 1st amendment protection with regard to something, so does every other medium. Singling out the internet as a medium here doesn't make any more sense than it does with the DMCA or mindless vulgarity laws (COPA), so the proposition doesn't make sense unless you're going to force every other medium to do the same. And if you want to see TV and newspapers go to crap because every asshat who can use a keyboard or a pen has the right to be published, then that's the way to do it.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Insightful)
All this will do is get people to move their postings to servers into more liberal geographic regions.
Only applies to 'professional on-line media' (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you blog for a living, this won't apply to you. Not that I don't think it's overly restrictive, but believing it would apply to all varities of online publishing seems completely against the authors' intention.
Definitions
For the purposes of this Recommendation:
the term "professional on-line media" means any natural or legal person or other entity whose main professional activity is to engage in the collection, dissemination and/or editing of information to the public on a regular basis via the Internet;
the term "information" means any statement of fact, opinion or idea in the form of text, sound and/or picture.
Re: two questions (Score:2, Insightful)
So Alice posts something defamatory and untrue about Bob, Charlie reads it, and is stupid enought to believe it. Bob loses custom and therefore money.
According to you, it serves Bob right because Charlie is stupid.
This is insightful now?
Americans missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, American's are saying this is "unconstitutional" or "it shifts costs of replies to the owner of the site."
Show me an amendment that grants the right of the original poster of a comment on the internet the right to not have to display a rebuttal? That's insane. There is no such constitutional amendment preventing this. In fact this is more constitutional than unconstitutional. I would be guarenteed the right to "free speech" in responding to my accusers. It would have a chilling effect on media, but this is a GOOD thing. People should not go around accusing others of poor decision making without proof. If fact, would media be better if it were about multiple parties sitting down and discussing the issue rather than getting one editorial point of view?
Also, this is from an editorial point of view. Note in the United States if I said "Michael Jackson is a child molester" and this had serious effects on his reputation and I had no proof, Mike can already sue me under Slander/libel law. If I come out and say "George Bush has made terrible decisions and here is what they are," I would be rather elated to find George posting on my website a rebuttal. I could then engage him in direct discussion. If I reported on some joe shmoe down the street who had an internet connection but no site and criticized him for his lawn care, then perhaps he should get the right to rebutt so he can tell everyone why rather than get just one point of view.
Finally, if you are posting about your people in your neighborhood and how dumb they are for doing this or that, and they don't have the ability to reply on your website, who does that hurt? It hurts them! You shouldn't be posting such information without proof to back it up and if they can rebutt you they should have the right. Otherwise its a one sided publication, and not a discussion.
What's nice about this proposal is that it would turn media into an open forum. Yanno.... like slashdot.
And you would think Slashdotters would be all over that idea.
Re:Newspapers too -- yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Dalzell: Internet = broad, Radio = narrow (Score:3, Insightful)
I've also seen some people here claim that it's not an imposition on freedom of speech because you can still publish what you want, or that it *is* an imposition because it will have a "chilling effect." I think these people miss the point. The reason it violates freedom of speech, is because it's *compelled speech* -- it's the government mandating that I have to publish things I disagree with. In radio, where there's limited spectrum, everyone has to sacrifice. But on the 'net, there's no need for that.
Re:Newspapers too -- yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
If the town square scenario isn't convincing, how about any venue in which, say, a nobel prize winner is invited to speak and that person goes on a long discourse about how humans are damaging the earth, that the fault is with the evil oil companies, big business, automobiles, Bush, whatever. To be consistent, whoever he lambasts should have a right to respond at the same venue. Ideally, that might be great, but perhaps the folks hosting the talk cannot afford (in time and money) to provide for this reply and provide the original guest with sufficient time to present his ideas.
Some comedians are really just thinly-vieled political commentators (Carlan, Gallhager, for instance). At times, very funny, at others, more sobering and thought-provoking than anything else. Should they have to provide for a rebuttal?
The bottom line is, you can't mandate debate. There is no way to ensure it will actually happen. More than likely, you are going to get two pontificating positions, with no real give and take or exchange of ideas.
Some will say this law doesn't apply to the forums I described. I say that is invalid because you should be guided by principles and there is no particular reason to control electronic or print media over in-person, vocal media.
Not insightful, moronic (Score:1, Insightful)
How? You mean the company doesn't have the resources to get their messages out?
Even a child could tell that this is essentially a way to stop people from criticizing business and corporate interests.
This has nothing to do with "free speech"; it is the opposite of free speech; it assumes a corporation has the same rights as a person. Disgusting.
You're absolutely right (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, this has been a problem for a while and is getting worse.
The responses to this article are, alas, all too predictable. "It violates my civil liberties!" they cry. "It's abusing freedom of speech!" "You couldn't enforce it anyway, because it would cost too much!" "How do I check someone is who they say they are?" Do they really believe that no-one's thought of this stuff before?
Well, guess what, kids. With freedom comes responsibility. We can agree that you have the right to say what you wish, but only if you accept the consequences of what you say. If I suffer harm, physical or mental, because you said something about me that wasn't fair, then you owe me fair compensation for that.
This sort of action was inevitable, and is a direct and proportionate response to many people abusing the privilege of free speech on the Internet. The "I should be able to say anything I like without fear of response!" advocates should consider themselves lucky that European governments aren't considering a scheme that removes anonymity on the Internet entirely and opens the online world to prosecution under existing libel laws.
(No, you couldn't get absolutely everyone, as a few people would know enough to remain truly anonymous. Technologically, you could easily get the vast majority, though.)
This is not a play school. People on-line can and do get away with mass fraud, posing as doctors and offering poor medical advice, destroying rival businesses' reputations through posting completely untrue horror stories, and more. None of this is justifiable under the banner of "free speech", and nothing in the European proposal restricts your free speech. It simply means you'll be held accountable for what you say, and why the hell shouldn't you be?
Re:Newspapers too? (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be all fine and dandy, except that it doesn't matter if you think its bad or good. all that matters is what the company thinks.
Forcing someone to write or support an idea in their publication that they don't agree with is a form of facism. The beauty of personal ownership is to editorialize, to say what you want to say, and to not say the ideas you don't agree with. Forcing companies to publish ideas that they don't want to publish seems like a gross abuse of individual liberties. It doesn't matter that its cheap. You're forcing them to spend money to print information contrary to what they believe.
If you want to speak an idea, you pay for it. Don't force those who may not agree with you to use their time, their money, their life to support your idea.
You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to free microphones.
Corporations (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:2, Insightful)
No limits on length of reply? (Score:1, Insightful)
"â Long replies are fine. 'There should be flexibility regarding the length of the reply, since there are (fewer) capacity limits for content than (there are) in off-line media.'"
Scared yet? The potential for abuse is staggering.