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)."
Two questions. (Score:3, Interesting)
2. If the answer to 1 is "they won't", does this mean that any EU site will be a juicy target for trolls impersonating the subject of criticism? Sure sounds like an invitation for some nasty abuses to me!
Jurisdictional problems (Score:5, Interesting)
A SCO rep could just reply on the journal entry, but how does the authentication work? Could I require him to PGP-sign his message? Or would it be irrelevant because Slashdot is not based in Europe?
Confused (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say I'm in Europe and my server is in the USA (pretty common I would guess). Whose laws am I subject to? And let's say I'm subject to European laws. They may be able to arrest me, but I would assume they have no legal right to force the ISP to remove my content.
Have there been any precedents around this sort of thing? And what country combination were those precedents?
Kazaa seems to be depending on this model - clients in the USA (and everywhere else, but USA is where the legal action is around Kazaa), staff in Australia, company & servers in Vanuatu. Maybe they are taking advantage of the confusion?
A BLOG ! (Score:4, Interesting)
"The reply should be made publicly available in a prominent place for a period of time (that) is at least equal to the period of time during which the contested information was publicly available, but, in any case, no less than for 24 hours." "
--Prominent... Like close to the offending comment, offering it the same exposure ?
â Hyperlinking to a reply is acceptable. "It may be considered sufficient to publish (the reply) or make available a link to it" from the spot of the original mention.
--ditto
â "So long as the contested information is available online, the reply should be attached to it, for example through a clearly visible link."
--ditto
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."
-ditto
So, all I will do is add a small line at the bottom of my Blog that says "Whatever you say, someone else can answer if they feel compelled to!"...
As in, a blog ?
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're European (Check) and you think this sounds bad (Check) read the propsoal (Will do) and write to your MEP (You'll probably have to find out who they are first of course) and object. Explain why.
Hopefully we can stop it becoming an actual idiotic law.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2, Interesting)
Why should an electronic forum be forced to post a response? Why can't the responder post it on their own website/mailing list/forum as generally happens now?
Boundaries (Score:4, Interesting)
Are opinions included? Am I allowed to say "I don't like you" or do I have to post your rebuttal?
Are business covered? Do they have to post replies from their competitors? If a company claims that their product works, is that tacit criticism of someone who says that it does not? Does that person get to post their complaint on the offending companies website?
What if the criticism is oblique? "Other products aren't as fast as the Super Widget 2003" Who gets to reply?
This is capitalistic gentrification. This is some organization planting a flag and claiming the internet as principally a business stomping ground.
One Answer, one new question (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
So the answer is they're required to verify it. My question is, who's going to get the burden of authentication? Can you get away with just not posting responses that don't include some form of authentication, or do you have to go talk with everyone who submits a response letter to find out if they're aurthentic or not? That could be a potential pain.
Re:Why is this not good? (Score:4, Interesting)
Man, and it was objective right up to the end... (Score:5, Interesting)
Europe lacks a First Amendment and the respect for limited government, private property and free enterprise that America still enjoys.
Item 1: Of course they don't have the First Amendment. They don't have the Declaration of Independance or the Proclamation of Emancipation, either; the First Amendment is part of the American constitution. This intentionally emotion-provoking phrase intends to say "they don't have freedom of speech", which may be true in limited ways (I understand, for example, that Nazi references are regulated in Germany), but I've never heard of extreme censorship in Europe. Am I wrong? Is Europe secretly a band of neo-nazi fascist authoritarians? My bad...
Item 2: No respect for private property. Really? This reads like a third-grader's "your momma's so fat" joke; it seems like it's just there to try to make Europe seem bad, without any justifying context. Again, am I wrong? Did Europe turn Commie when I wasn't looking? I hate it when they do that...
Item 3: Free enterprise is disrespected by Europe too? Okay, I don't actually know anything about Europe on this one. If we let Microsoft to continue to operate a monopoly, let the RIAA run the music industry as an oligarchy, and let the oil industry run the government (all of which practices are extremely discouraging to "free enterprise" in that competition is made more difficult), we don't get to bitch about Europe.
Item 4: "... that America still enjoys". With the implication that in pursuit of respect for Free Speech, Respect For Small Government, and Respect For Free Enterprise, America is the shining star that all other nations should look to for inspiration. Get real; the states aren't any better at any of this than their peers in democracy. College kids don't get their life-savings yanked for producing search engines in free-speech respecting nations. America rocks; it's my favorite country by far. But don't go trying to make it sound like it's got all the problems licked, and if the rest of the world would just look at what we're doing over here...
Stop trying to cram pro-American sentimentalities down our throat. There were two pages of informative and interesting writing before that line, why'd you have to ruin it by trying to make America the moral of the story?
Sheesh...
Re:America seems really terrible... (Score:5, Interesting)
quote is on NRO [nationalreview.com] Sorry for the second-hand refrence. It is from The Economist and I do not have a subscription
Read the article (Score:3, Interesting)
These laws did exist in the US, but don't anymore.
I think this is a generally a good thing, and quite polite.
The problem is it may be open to abuses, which could be solved simply by linking to the persons web site with the post about them, if they care enough to respond they can do it there.
Re:What?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if President Bush says some nasty things about you in his blog, what good does it do if you say some nasty things about him in your personal blog
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, this is probably the biggest reason why people are against it. "It will stifle free speech", they say, because "it will keep people from posting what they really feel if they have to deal with the consequences."
Exactly. You have to deal with the consequences. People in today's society (well, at least the U.S. for you foreign devils out there
Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communication (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet publications should not draw a pass simply because they use a different technology. Nor should weblogs, mailing lists, etc., expect an exemption because they are "personal" or often operated by only one person.
If you want what you say to be considered private communications, you wouldn't print it in a newspaper or broadcast it on radio or TV. Likewise, if you want what you write to be seen as private communications, don't put it on the Internet.
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:2, Interesting)
In the US, Amendment 1 says I can have my opinion. The thirteenth amendment says I don't have to do any work for this other guy without compensation. One of these would have to give here in the US. It would either have to be a waiver of the thirteenth or a qualification of the first.
Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
No. The draft proposal says that a link is ok. It does not say that the person or organization that wants to provide a rebuttal needs to provide space for the reply. It looks to me like a statement like "Walpurgis Mart Sucks" could result in "Walpurgis Mart" requiring me to put up a 100 Mb response.
Even so, I do have a couple questions about links as required here.... If I link to someone's reply from a period (".")in my text, is that sufficient? How about linking from an image map? Or from some fancy javascript? Could my link be set up to popunder a 10 by 10 pixel window that looks like it originates from the people who dont like what I said and that refuses to close?
Enquiring minds and all that ....
Re:Confused (Score:3, Interesting)
While they cannot force your ISP to remove the content for you if the law in that country does not allow them to do so, they can force you to remove the content from your own website as a court order. If you refuse to obey the court order, you can be held in contempt of court and jailed until such time as you agree to the order.
Anyone else read _Trouble_and_Her_Friends_ by Melissa Scott? Her novel predates the DCMA but coveres some of the same ideas coincidentally, and some of the ideas in this latest european action as well.
Hold on a minute! (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is why I cannot too worried about it. Crypto was outlawed in France for years, for instance, but getting PGP was as simple as calling your firendly neighbourhood BBS and firing up that ZModem (I know, this happened to me!).
Besides, I doubt SCO (or Microsoft, or
Finally, if you have juicy information on, say, a clear violation of the GPL by Microsoft, you'd better back it up with some serious proof, so that MS can't sue you into oblivion...
In short: nothing to see here. Carry on.
Groups vs. Individuals (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, the next time the RIAA goes on some spiel on a European website about how people who d/l mp3s are evil pirates who are destorying the recording industries profits, robbing artists of house and home, and eat babies on the side, who has the right of response?
Can any person who is willing to admit that they have traded mp3s force the RIAA or whichever site hosted the article to include a counter-response? If so, just the first person who responds? Or every response they get? Or would the file-traders need to form some kind of official group to make the response? Or does the RIAA get away with it because they're slandering a nebulous group rather than a specific individual?
Re:Right to reply? Certanly. (Score:3, Interesting)
Could be really bad, too:
"Company A sucks."
Company A's reply, posted as mandated by law
"Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good...." etc., for gigabytes and gigabytes...
If they want to do this, they should add in a bit about response limited to the same length as the original.
-T
Re:Jurisdictional problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Stupid flamewars among kiddies aside (man, would this law make THAT a mess), this could kill off every sort of user-opinion forum out there.
What if every time someone here posted a negative remark about M$, either in a comment or a journal, Slashdot was forced to post M$'s rebuttal? And then whoever they FUD'd gets to post a rebuttal, and so on...
Wouldn't be long before user forums and blogs either go underground, collaspe under the sheer weight, or become bland useless places where nothing controversial is ever discussed.
Perhaps including even this law.
Boo Hoo (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey - wake up - take a good look at the site you are reading right now.
A site that delivers news and where readers can talk back and have their reply shown via a visible link for at least 24 hours.
Download SlashCode, remove the A/C posting feature - there, you comply with the upcoming regulations.
Problem being?
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine all the blogs and parody sites that rip on (in a non libelous way) corporations or public figures. They certainly have the resources to answer on their own goddamn web page if I can afford to do it on mine. You can bet that soon, every high traffic site that says something bad about company X will have their official marketing letter FUD on there. It would be like hosting an advertisement from them.
I don't know about you, but it would piss me off.
Re:Americans missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but that has to be one of the silliest things I've read this month.
If you libel someone, you can be sued, and rightfully so. But criticism is a long way from libel. No one has the right to have their message posted on my website. It's my website, and I'll put whatever I want on it, as long as it isn't illegal. And it isn't illegal to say, on my website, that my neighbors lawn is ugly. The notion that, if I say that, my neighbor has the right to +force+ me to post his rebuttal on +my+ website is simply ludicrous.
As for your quote above, once I actually parsed out the double negative, I had to shake my head. Everyone has the right +not+ to do something. You always have a right +not+ to do what you don't want to do with your property. Good grief, that's like arguing that I don't have the right to keep people out of my house. I can't point to an amendment that says I don't have the right to not keep you out of my house, but surely you don't meant to argue that anyone can waltz into my house anytime they feel like it.
Re:Newspapers too? (Score:3, Interesting)
Although some people would like to change this [bbc.co.uk], and rightly so.
Re:Americans missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm half/half North American/European and lived half my life in each continent so I see how things work on both sides of the Atlantic.
Right of reply is the most constitutional and democratic thing ever! I'll tell you why Reagan said it didn't promote free speech.
He started out in the media industry : radio host and actor. His friends in the media would say whatever pleased him to get him elected in return of favors like politcal protection.
Bush and his CNN/Foxnews friends certainly played the Americans latel. All forms of democratic dialogue was quelled by the Bush administration and their media friends.
Outside the US we've heard Rumsfeld has ties with Halliburton (even gets a few millions every couple years) and Bush in oil and media. We also heard the facts regarding Bush's grandaddy and the Nazi family ties. We also heard about the forged documents the Bush administration came up with way before it even made news in the US (I heard about it two days after the US had given it to UNMOVIC).
People in the US are blatently disinformed and laws like ROR are only meant to stop misinformation from happening.
When you have corruption (ala Microsoft and SCO) Slashdot gives the ROR to the people and that is why it is so popular. Actually the papers in France (there are a ton just in Paris) love the ROR on editorials. Their sales go up whenever they have a reply in one of their papers. They make more sales because people love listening to a dialogue rather than a mind numbing CNN/Foxnews.
In most European countries the head of state often goes on TV to talk to people and often live. They answer questions from the public and sometimes have to admit their own fallacies.
Has anyone seen Bush accept a challenge from the people? The only interviews he had were as close as rigged as you could have. He has all his answers readied for the prepared question we ask him. This is not dialogue, this is organized monologue.
ROR is for you the people.
There is one (Score:3, Interesting)
PS: you did understand that this wasn't about forcing citizen to accept reply from other citizen or forcing their opinion on others, didn't you ? This is about forcing www media outlet to have the same law as newspaper outlet. That is media which have an enormous coverage in comparison to a citizen must allow him the same coverage under certain circumstance , like report of negative info on the former.
Re:There is one (Score:3, Interesting)
If every news paper were spitting half assed lies about me, I would like to have the right to make rectification rather than make a libel process or have my own propespect printed out.
As far as I can tell, that's mostly because you're lazy, not because of any well justified philosophy or cultural value.
But I perfectly understand that in a litigious all-over-the-board free speech society you rather have lawyer handle the job.
In our society, words are not thought crimes, or doubleungoodthink. People speak their minds, and other people have the ability to decide for themselves whether they are speaking bullshit: and the ethic behind this is that everyone is suppoed to be critical, and check for other information. Some people here are lazy too, of course, but it's the laziness that's the problem, not that other people won't do your work for you.
This is about forcing www media outlet to have the same law as newspaper outlet. That is media which have an enormous coverage in comparison to a citizen must allow him the same coverage under certain circumstance, like report of negative info on the former.
Yes, I understand. Can you explain to me why "negative info" is bad unless it causes someone material harm (in which case they already have the right to seek redress?)
Re:why a chilling effect? (Score:3, Interesting)
"People in today's society (well, at least the U.S. for you foreign devils out there
Name one US state or territory that doesn't have slander and libel laws on the books.
Bearing the burden of publishing a rebuttal isn't about taking responsibility for your own actions, it's about taking responsibility for theirs as well. In the US, you are penalized if you say something you know to be untrue, especially if you do it maliciously. This law will effectively penalize you for saying anything, because you now have to buy two soapboxes instead of just the one.
For all the talk about media consolidation in the US and about how the situation is "better" in the EU, this law helps to ensure that only the powerful media conglomerates can publish criticisms. Freedom of the press now belongs to only those who can afford two.
more != better (Score:1, Interesting)
The internet is different. Bob can afford to put up his own web site as a counter. Web sites probably don't have effective monopolies because they are pulled content, not pushed. The audience in general seeks a variety of opinions. The multitude of voices on the internet delivers.
To control the manner in which you can speak and present your opinions is, at face value, stifling the freedom of your speech. This rule about mandatory talk back does not belong on the internet at this time. Hopefully it will never belong, as that will be admitting that the entire internet has gone corporate and that individuals, once again, don't have a voice. -theed