Slashdot Mirror

As for one in the free world, I know the freedom of press is a prerequisite to the freedom of speech. The freedom of press needs the right to the confidentiality of the sources. A warrant should only be upon probable cause : the warrant should concern a person suspected of a crime. There is no crime for a journalist to keep his sources confidential, this is a basic right for freedom. Consequently, there is no probable cause, no probable cause for search or seizure.

This concept is notably in the European Convention on Human Rights.

But I am not sure if the USA is in the free world.

TFA is terrible at explaining this, but the reason Netflix can't enter Cannes is because their movies haven't been in French cinemas, and the reason their movies haven't been in French cinemas is because it's illegal to to show movies inside and outside cinemas at the same time: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris...

See here https://www.echr.coe.int/Docum...

Thanks for having a civil discussion!

For what it's worth I used to be a firm believer in the Swedish model. What changed is that I spent four years in Sweden and became aware of the effect that welfare has on motivation. Refugees are particularly disadvantaged by it, but the effect on native Swedes is dire too.

Thank you, too! Europeans' concerns about immigration help put into perspective their attitudes towards Russia. For example, consider 2004 report by Alvaro Gil-Robles on human rights in Russia. Section V ("Rights of national minorities") almost looks like he was desperate to find a good model which could be useful for Europe, too.

Isn't Spain in the EU? How the hell is this allowed to happen?

The EU doesn't have a police force like the FBI that could override state authorities. It does have a supranational court, the ECHR, that can judge human-rights issues and force an EU country to implement a decision. However, I believe that it can only hear a case after it has gone through the country's judicial system and all possible appeals have been tried. In this case, the catalonians could, and probably will, sue the spanish state before spanish courts first, then appeal to the ECHR, which may then condemn Spain. This could take years, of course.

That's not actually true, is it'? Lots of detail here:

https://strasbourgobservers.co...
http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris...

Note that the court accepted that much of the content of the leaflet was legitimate and protected free speech. They were clearly trying to strike a balance between allowing controversial ideas to be discussed, in a school setting with children no less, and leaflets that are likely to restrict the freedom of gay people by subjecting them to homophobia.

That's the main difference between the EU and the US. The US sets the bar for speech that harms others much higher, and as a result we see that people do get severely harassed but there isn't much that can be done about it. In the EU there is more of a balance, seeking to both allow controversial ideas and to provide some protection to others.

Sweden has been known before to do as the US commands. Like in the scientology case: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris... The government was corrected by the courts, but the documents in question could not be requested anymore as before.

spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!

http://www.echr.coe.int/Docume... (ECHR)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Human Rights Act (HRA))
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/a... (Magna Carta 1215, Modern English translation at the British Library)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Bill of Rights 1689 (the dates are different because this is the year the calendar changed))
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c... (The Constitution of the United States, including Amendments I-XXVII)

French people seems to have reacted quite well to the killings, but french political leaders seems to be drowning in panic. They even suspended France's application of European Convention on Human Rights. From this link's France section:

Some of [the measures], prescribed by the decrees of 14 November 2015 and 18 November 2015 and by the Law of 20 November 2015, may involve a derogation from the obligations under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The ruling (linked in TFA) is conveniently written in English. It is pretty scary stuff, but IANAL - any professionals out there want to comment?

First of all, the comments made to the article in question "were vulgar in form; they were humiliating and defamatory and impaired L.’s honour, dignity and reputation. The comments went beyond justified criticism and amounted to simple insults."

Here is one of the more egregious comments: "What are you whining for, knock this bastard down once and for all [.] In future the other ones ... will know what they risk, even they will only have one little life.". Others were just name calling.

This is where the European Charter of Human Rights gets it wrong, because it allows exceptions to freedom of expression for a huge array of possible reasons. In this case, presumably, "for the protection of the reputation...of others". Seems to me, if you can outlaw simple insults, and vague threats, you can outlaw essentially anything.

In any case, the case was appealed all the way to the ECHR. While the ECHR says some of the right words in their appendix - they're all worried about censorship - none of that has any legal relevance. The core of the actual ruling:

"Based on the concrete assessment of the above aspects, taking into account the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the present case, in particular the extreme nature of the comments in question, the fact that the comments were posted in reaction to an article published by the applicant company on its professionally managed news portal run on a commercial basis, the insufficiency of the measures taken by the applicant company to remove without delay after publication comments amounting to hate speech and speech inciting violence and to ensure a realistic prospect of the authors of such comments being held liable, and the moderate sanction imposed on the applicant company, the Court finds that the domestic courts’ imposition of liability on the applicant company was based on relevant and sufficient grounds"

tl;dr: The news company should have pro-actively moderated comments and immediately - without any court case being required - removed the illegal comments. The court then goes on to express hope that this does not introduce a new reign of censorship, but that is exactly what is may do.

B. Article and comments published on the Internet news portal 16. On 24 January 2006 the applicant company published an article on the Delfi portal under the heading “SLK Destroyed Planned Ice Road”. Ice roads are public roads over the frozen sea which are open between the Estonian mainland and some islands in winter. The abbreviation “SLK” stands for AS Saaremaa Laevakompanii (Saaremaa Shipping Company, a public limited liability company). SLK provides a public ferry transport service between the mainland and certain islands. L. was a member of the supervisory board of SLK and the company’s sole or majority shareholder at the material time. 17. On 24 and 25 January 2006 the article attracted 185 comments. About twenty of them contained personal threats and offensive language directed against L. 18. On 9 March 2006 L.’s lawyers requested the applicant company to remove the offensive comments and claimed 500,000 Estonian kroons (EEK) (approximately 32,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The request concerned the following twenty comments: “1. (1) there are currents in [V]äinameri (2) open water is closer to the places you referred to, and the ice is thinner. Proposal – let’s do as in 1905, let’s go to [K]uressaare with sticks and put [L.] and [Le.] in a bag 2. bloody shitheads... they bathe in money anyway thanks to that monopoly and State subsidies and have now started to fear that cars may drive to the islands for a couple of days without anything filling their purses. burn in your own ship, sick Jew! 3. good that [La.’s] initiative has not broken down the lines of the web flamers. go ahead, guys, [L.] into the oven! 4. [little L.] go and drown yourself 5. aha... [I] hardly believe that that happened by accident... assholes fck 6. rascal!!! [in Russian] 7. What are you whining for, knock this bastard down once and for all [.] In future the other ones ... will know what they risk, even they will only have one little life. 8. ... is goddamn right. Lynching, to warn the other [islanders] and would-be men. Then nothing like that will be done again! In any event, [L.] very much deserves that, doesn’t he. 9. “a good man lives a long time, a shitty man a day or two” 10. If there was an iceroad, [one] could easily save 500 for a full car, fckng [L.] pay for that economy, why does it take 3 [hours] for your ferries if they are such good icebreakers, go and break ice in Pärnu port ... instead, fcking monkey, I will cross [the strait] anyway and if I drown, it’s your fault 11. and can’t anyone defy these shits? 12. inhabitants of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa islands, do 1:0 to this dope. 13. wonder whether [L.] won’t be knocked down in Saaremaa? screwing one’s own folk like that. 14. The people will chatter for a couple of days on the Internet, but the crooks (and also those who are backed and whom we ourselves have elected to represent us) pocket the money and pay no attention to this flaming – no one gives a shit about this. Once [M.] and other big crooks also used to boss around, but their greed struck back (RIP). Will also strike back for these crooks sooner or later. As they sow, so shall they reap, but they should nevertheless be contained (by lynching as the state is powerless towards them – it is really them who govern the state), because they only live for today. Tomorrow, the flood. 15. this [V.] will one day get hit with a cake by me. damn, as soon as you put a cauldron on the fire and there is smoke rising from the chimney of the sauna, the crows from Saaremaa are there – thinking that ... a pig is going to be slaughtered. no way 16. bastards!!

Yes, because that was hate speech. And you perhaps should quote more of the verdict. Because I'm pretty sure that the real hate speech comes a bit later, and that this "cause of all evil" is only the introduction.

The example you gave 3 posts back was not hate speech :D

No, it is not word for word the example you gave. Your example was first of all: right. And this "jews are the root of all evil" can't be upheld by any historical evidence, so minimum it is a lie.

Here you can read the whole case: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/site...{"itemid":["001-79619"]}

I suggest to try to understand what is going on instead of cherry picking random quotes with the attempt to support your standpoint.

Reality check: The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recommends that blasphemy, as an insult to a religion, should not be deemed a criminal offence. That sort of contradicts your claims regarding the cultural background for the legal environment. Furthermore, no "recriminalizing blasphemy at breakneck speed" has actually taken place in Europe; those regulations that exist in Europe are quite antiquated, and most of them haven't even been used for decades. Regarding the sad few cases where that happened, see point 1) again.

"The applicants contended that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are absolute rights and that to apply any form of direct compulsion to require an accused person to make incriminatory statements against his will of itself destroys the very essence of that right. The Court is unable to accept this."

We have the European Convention of Human Rights - http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
But it doesn't include a right not to incriminate yourself.

The Court of Justice interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries. It also settles legal disputes between EU governments and EU institutions. Individuals, companies or organisations can also bring cases before the Court if they feel their rights have been infringed by an EU institution.

Find an EU law that the UK government has broken (shouldn't be too hard!), and then file a case. If the case is from an individual, then the European Court of Human Rights may be an alternative. (IAANL, so YMMV)

This is a horrible summary (or more precisely, the first sentence of it is). First of all, the judgement in the case Delfi AS v. Estiona was handed down by the European Court of Human Rights, which is not a court of the European Union, but exists to adjudicate the European Convention on Human Rights, and violations thereof. Almost all European Countries, including the non-EU ones, are signatories to the convention and thus have agreed to abide by the court's judgement. But that's just international law, not EU law (though the EU also requires accession to the ECHR for membership).

Second, the court did not rule that a website is legally responsible for the statements its users make. The court does not even have the power to make this determination. It only ruled that the national law of Estonia, which under certain circumstances allowed websites to be held liable for what their users said, as applied in this case, was not a disproportionate response incompatible with article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression, a.k.a. freedom of speech).

The press release summarizing the judgement is here. The judgement itself appears to not be online yet.

The court decided there is no right to take someone elses work without paying for it when that person does not freely give it away...

Actually, the Court found that there is such a right. From the judgment:

The Court has consistently emphasised that Article 10 guarantees the right to impart information and the right of the public to receive it... In the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the sharing and dissemination of information generally...

In the present case, the applicants put in place the means for others to impart and receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court considers that the actions taken by the applicants are afforded protection under Article 10 1 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicants’ convictions interfered with their right to freedom of expression. [Citations removed, emphasis added]

The Court went on to find that the interference was permitted (under Article 10(2)) as it was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society for achieving that aim. However, that doesn't mean that the underlying right doesn't exist, merely that the interference with it was justified/proportionate based on the facts provided by the Swedish Courts.

Just for some thoughts, quote: "The Convention prohibits in particular: torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, slavery and forced labour, death penalty, arbitrary and unlawful detention, and discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention."

(to be found at http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/The+Court/Introduction/Information+documents/ )

How is that in the US of A?

CC.

That's because an IP address is not a human being when it comes to matters of law.

The decisions of a US district court can't be expected to carry much weight in Germany.

On 12 May 2010, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court - BGH) granted an injunction to a music rights marketing company against the private operator of a WLAN under contributory negligence rules.

The BGH agreed that the plaintiff had no civil law entitlement to damages for breach of copyright by the defendant, either as perpetrator or participant, since it had not been proved that the defendant had shared the music himself or deliberately helped a third party to do so. There was every reason to assume that the person to whom an IP address had been allocated would be responsible for an infringement committed from that address. However, in this case, this assumption had been credibly refuted by the defendant's claim that he had been on holiday when the offence was committed. Neither had he intentionally participated in an infringement by a third party.

However, under contributory negligence rules, the BGH found the WLAN owner liable for failing to prevent a protected work from being made available to the public (Art. 19a of the Urheberrechtsgesetz - Copyright Act). By operating a WLAN that was not sufficiently secure, the defendant had wilfully and, with sufficient causality, contributed to this infringement and failed to meet his duty of due diligence in this respect. Even private individuals - if only in their own interest to protect their data - could be expected to verify whether their WLAN was sufficiently secure to prevent its misuse by third parties standing outside.

BGH Finds WLAN Operator Liable

[2010]

TorrentFreak, to, to its credit, posted this link as an Update to its original story.

You need to get familiar with CoE stand on this. This treatment is not dignifying or fair at all.

You can do so here.

http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/070305_en.asp

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14

Rome, 4.XI.1950

Articles 9 and 10: full text

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

-0-

There is NOTHING in there that says ANYONE, whether real or imaginary, has the right not to be offended.

Maxim: If it is not specifically unlawful, then it is lawful (measured against Common Law). Stuff like murder, fraud, rape; all unlawful, whereas walking through the middle of a city with a bow and arrows in plain sight is not. Local ordinances may vary, please seek legal advice.
Corollary: If it is not specifically illegal, then it is legal (measured against Statute). It's illegal to withhold rent, but it is not illegal to place that money in an escrow account until the landlord fulfills his part of the contract, eg repairing a roof.

Yes, that's the yarn which has circled in the fanboy echo chamber. Which has essentially no correlation with reality. Do you really think that two separate British courts, including the high court, reviewed the charges against him and confirmed that they met the definition of rape even in the UK, if that was the case?

Here's a brief summary of what was actually alleged. And here's the court's more detailed fact-finding (you should definitely read the latter). There's nothing "suspicious" about how the case was handled unless you don't actually know how the case was handled (which, of course, has been the main goal of Assange's backers).

To briefly summarize the *actual* accusations, they're that Assange quickly began trying to make out with the first woman, which she initially went along with, only to have him try to force her legs apart and pin her down trying to force sex without a condom, to wherein she consented to sex with a condom to prevent it from happening to her without a condom, only to find out later that the condom was "broken". That night she told a friend about the "violent" (her words) sex with assange, and then moved out of her *own apartment* to get away from him. Concerning the other girl, he had tried to sleep with her without a condom over and over, something which she had never done in her life, even with her previous long-term boyfriend. She kept refusing. He stayed up while she fell asleep, and she woke up to him having sex with her without a condom (if you don't think that having sex with a sleeping person is rape, imho, you're a sick bastard). And yes, she understandably freaked out after it and tried to force him to get an STD test, which he refused.

As for the whole "they didn't decide it was rape until talking together" thing, that's the most offfensive part to me. Do you know how hard it is to admit to even yourself, let alone others, that you were raped? I called mine "an unwanted sexual experience" and whatever other weasel words I could get out of to avoid using that term for myself. It took three months of denial and trying just to move on with my life before I could accept what happened to me. There's a reason most rapes are never reported. You just want to put it in the past and forget about it; the last thing you want to do is have to relive it, to face the person again, to have all sorts of vile allegations leveled against *you*, etc. But if I had found out shortly afterwards that the next day that the guy who attacked me had done the same sort of thing to another girl? I don't know how I would have reacted, but it certainly would have changed the picture.

As for the CPT, they criticize everyone. That's their job. The report on Sweden is no worse than on any other state, and a lot better than a number. And as for giving suspects to the US, Assange felt so comfortable with Sweden that he was *applying for residency* when he was charged with rape. And then fled to the UK from there, which is ten times the US lackey Sweden ever was.

Would you point out to me where the treaty allows for extradition for questioning when no charges have been filed? http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm

GOOD POINT !!

Sweden has yet to file official charges on Mr. Assange and yet we all witness how eager Britain is in trying to extradite him !!

This case has exposed one thing - None of the judges in UK, from the high court on down, can be entrusted in serving The Law
 

Would you point out to me where the treaty allows for extradition for questioning when no charges have been filed? http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm

To be fair, this is just illegal in every country that has ratified and implemented the cybercrime convention (emphasis mine):

Article 5 - System interference

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data.

And the safeguards and scope limitations in Articles 14-16 do not protect "anonymous" in any ratifying country either. Maybe the jurisdiction article helps:

Article 22 - Jurisdiction

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with Articles 2 through 11 of this Convention, when the offence is committed:

a in its territory; or
(...)
d by one of its nationals, if the offence is punishable under criminal law where it was committed or if the offence is committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of any State.

2 Each Party may reserve the right not to apply or to apply only in specific cases or conditions the jurisdiction rules laid down in paragraphs 1.b through 1.d of this article or any part thereof.

(...)
5 When more than one Party claims jurisdiction over an alleged offence established in accordance with this Convention, the Parties involved shall, where appropriate, consult with a view to determining the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution.

So depending on how the ratifying countries implemented the convention into law there may be a way out through 1d. But 5. makes me doubt.

However IANAL.

No, you are very wrong. The ECHR is not an EU court, it is part of the Council of Europe. It decides in cases of citizens against states subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is the court of last resort for such cases.

The member countries of the European Union are subject to the The Court of Justice of the European Union. Violations of EU treaties and law is brought before this court. Justice is far quicker and harsher in this court.

No, that's not entirely correct. The country must have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The criteria are not clear cut however.

The ban on capital punishment is part of the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention is a membership requirement for the Council of Europe, an entirely separate body that predates the European Union.

It is generally understood that both membership of the CoE and ratification of the ECHR is a requirement for EU membership.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the equivalent, but there is also article 8 about the right to respect for private and family life which Sean Duffy was infringing.

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf

In this case, it looks like the politicians had a succession of um, fringe researchers, with a very definite axe to grind pushed in front of them. Here's the actual Council of Europe report, http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc11/edoc12608.htm There's a clear bias in the report which has fairly uncritically accepted a lot of contentious claims, often promoted by just one or two individuals, while being very hostile to anything that looks industry-related, or, frankly, anything repeatable or widely peer-reviewed. Plus it recommends more funding for those favoured individuals, which I'm sure is very nice for them.

there's no "international court" or body of "international law." (probably you know this, but many people reading the phrase "international copyright laws" get confused).

Here are some bodies and courts of international law: 1,2, 3,4.

I think I just made a law troll post.

I know it's in the UK, so we're talking about different laws here, but in the end it all comes down to either supporting free speech or not supporting it. The true test of freedom of speech is not in allowing people who agree with your viewpoints to express them but in allowing those who you disagree with and who say even the most vile and atrocious things the right to say them.

Except that in the UK there is no right to "free speech" but to "free expression" which is "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority". Colm Coss was not attempting to "express his viewpoint" or explain his ideas or opinions because he didn't have any - he was quite open that he was just trying to upset people to gain pleasure from it. Would it be possible for the authorities to abuse the law or take it too far to suppress unpopular political views? Probably. But I don't really see how this can be said to be the case here.

It's not like the US has unrestricted free speech either - the accumulated caselaw creates various categories of speech, with the expression of political views most highly protected (so you can slander prominent politicians and there is practically nothing they can do about it) and other categories less protected.

Thanks, I didn't know about that site - something to mess around with next time a similar topic comes up.

The reference to superior legislation is confusingly phrased but I think it's refering to Article 1 and the right to Protection of Property.

The council of Europe has for example a treaty on cybercrime that the USA have ratified. So this treaty could be open to non-members too.

So a treaty on Internet freedom for democracries is a very good idea, to avoid some democracies to fall on the dark side...

Actually, Article 2 of the original European Convention makes allowances for the death penalty, as can be seen where it is reproduced in the human rights act. The Sixth protocol (at the bottom of the page) was agreed later, adding abolition of the death penalty in wartime. Finally the thirteenth protocol finished it off. Whether it was closed down steadily due to initial oversight or to weaken opposition is another matter...

Germany just got sentenced by the ECHR to pay 50.000 EUR in compensation in a similar case.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=12&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=53724427&skin=hudoc-pr-en

The treaty is not the central issue here, it is far more complicated than that.

First of all you have to be a lawyer, understand European legal systems (not Anglo-American "Common Law") and know EU law to really discuss this. I happen to qualify :)

Even if the EU wanted to impose a three strike law it would have to overcome a number of obstacles. I believe it could be argued that it would be in conflict with the constitutions of several of the EU member nations. You see as the EU is NOT a federal government, the individual nations still have sovereignty and national constitutions.

More interestingly the European Convention on Human Rights, a central treaty to *ALL* European countries both inside and outside the EU, spell out fundamental rights that neither the EU or individual nations can ignore.

The question has already been raised if such legislation as the proposed "three strikes" law would be in conflict with several fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, access to information and possibly other rights from enterprise to education.

In many European nations the courts have deliberated and expanded what we consider basic and necessary to function in a modern society. A law that denies people such a "basic" right to communicate, educate, trade/work and participate in public discussions would probably be in conflict with the ECHR [to be determined by the *non-EU* European Court of Human Rights]

The European Court of Human Rights.

I would not be so sure. They are appealing to the EU Human Rights court thepiratebay.org which is also here echr.coe.int Also they are being asked to appear in Court in Netherlands, which the official mail got lost so they ( Brein Foundation sent tweets twitter.com inviting them to court. Oh and just for the record this waas submitted to /. earlier just some anti copyright people modded submissions down so it would not get posted.

The European Convention on Human Rights has little to do with the European Union other than that the EU obliges its member-states to be members in good standing of the Council of Europe (and ultimately, when the EU has its own legal personality, it will also be a member).

The Council of Europe has Churchillian origins and predates the early origins of European Union by a couple of years; it has always had a larger membership than the EU, and it is mostly focused on encouraging the establishment of human, civil and democratic rights in the whole of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights is administered by the CofE.

A good chunk of the European Convention on Human Rights comes from French law (reworked and neutrally codified (for the various legal systems in place among the CofE member-states) by a very British lawyer named Maxwell-Fyfe). Although it is a useful framework, the Convention is genuinely less extensive and forceful than French law. For instance, you might want to consider the few lines of the current constitution of the French Republic or the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on which those lines were based. (The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was also partially inspired by both).

Moreover, France, as a Council of Europe member-state is obliged to incorporate CofE human, civil and democratic rights law into its own national system in cases where the former is considered to be stronger.

The vast majority of appeals to the European Court of Human Rights from persons in France have had to do with long delays in the justice system, on the principle of justice delayed is justice denied.

Hence, if the French courts regarded Scientology as a religion they would be bound, by EU law , to allow it.

No.

Quoting http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp :

The Government of the Republic, in accordance with the Constitutional statute of June 3rd 1958, has proposed,

The French people have adopted,

The President of the Republic hereby promulgates the Constitutional statute worded as follows :

[...]

Article 1

France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis.

The people of France merely guarantee equaity before the law without regard to one's religion except where there is a conflict with France's secularity.

As a Canadian with an interest in human rights, you will probably recognize some of the wording in the second paragraph

[source http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm ]

Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

You can thank Maxwell-Fyfe, 1950ish, rather than Trudeau, 1980ish.

The balance of rights is an enormously important part of modern legal systems; pragmatic codifiers wisely choose to make the necessity of balance explicit, and realize that the balance may shift from case to case and over the course of many years. Ultimately the question is to what e

http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/funktion/gesetze/Grundgesetz/gg_01.html
Artikel 5: Eine Zensur findet nicht statt. (no censorship)
Artikel 10: Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich. (privacy of letters)

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
Article 6 - Right to a fair trial: Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;[...]
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it
            special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
            restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are
            necessary:
            (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
            (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of
                                public health or morals.

I am reminded of DeValera's 1937 Constitution of Ireland [...] In my opinion, ICANN's ultimate aim to transform the internet into a place akin to 1950's Ireland

I'm not sure why the text you quote suggests this to you, as it should remind you of something else somewhat more strongly (scroll down to article 10). I don't think we can ascribe the motives you describe to the Council of Europe, so something else is at play here.

In fact, the text you quote is not that far away from the US constitution, or at least the modern interpretation of it, which has exceptions (for example) for protecting the young and impressionable from certain types of speech (e.g. it is not legal to show sexually explicit material to children, the purpose of this is to protect their morals) or encouraging people to violent action (which is for the purpose of protecting public health, by preventing injury). Yes, these exceptions were not codified in the first amendment, but they have been treated as existing by the courts.

The point is that this is a reasonable description of the most universal understanding of the idea of freedom of expression. What ICANN are proposing is in line with the human rights legislation of ECHR signatories (i.e., almost all of Europe, along with most of northern Asia and Iceland). It is similar to language in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which held that the rights it described may be subject to restrictions "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." It isn't far removed from the human rights legislation of the USA. It is also very similar to similar rights in the laws of other countries, including India.

So, really, I don't think you're on the right track here at all. By almost everyone's standards, the description given is a reasonable description of the right to freedom of expression.

Here's an example link

But it's one of the biggest news stories going in my country, and several others.

You may be sane and against this evil act, but the CIA agents who have kidnapped my people and thrown them onto a plane to be tortured in Syria were obviously ok with it. The chinese are still communists, even if Ping Zhao strongly believes in capitalism.

Double Jeopardy works differently in different countries. Originally part of "common law", double jeopardy laws vary throughout Europe, but generally look more like the Canadian version than the US version. In short: Appeals to a higher court are not considered a NEW trial, but rather a continuation of the old trial.

In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights provides a measure of protection, specifically Protocol 7, article 4:

Article 4 - Right not to be tried or punished twice

      1. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.
      2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.
      3. No derogation from this Article shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

As the article implicitly states, unless you have been FINALLY convicted, you can be tried again.

- speak my mind

Not true.

http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2005/2/article35.en.html

Most of the people in the UK believe everything they read or see from the Rupert Murdoch empire. The man has too much power, and too much reason to desire a weak, divided Europe. You should judge the E.U. and its various organisations on their accomplishments and failures, not what the Murdoch press has to say about them. The European Court of Human Rights case law database is online, but unfortunately few in the UK will ever use it, believing instead what they are encouraged to believe by the media.

And it, of course, shows a stunning lack of understanding of geography or other countries. The UK has no enshrined right to free speech, the right to assembly has been slowly curtailed since the 1980s, starting with laws to stop raves, and then to stop political demonstrations in certain areas (like outside parliament) and cutting off a personal internet account doesn't stop journalists reporting.

...and Computer Misuse Act 1(1) and European Convention on Cybercrime, Articles 2, 3 and 6.

IANAL but the UK law covering this is the Computer Misuse Act and more recently the European Convention on Cyber Crime.

As I read it BT are guilty under CMA 1(1) which relates to unauthorised access to any program or data held in a computer. Whether the information checking is done on the computer or the ADSL hub it is a violation. With regard to the Convention on Cybercrime they appear to be guilty under Articles 2, 3 and 6.

I hope someone sues their buttocks off.

I'm not really sure on this as it was quite a while since i read up on free-speech within the EU.

Article 10 of the ECHR is:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Unfortunately the get out clause is "for the protection of health or morals". I've no idea how this has been tested to apply so far in any court cases. With regards to the criminalising of possession of "extreme porn" that I talked about, the Government acknowledges that it violates article 10 (and article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - which has a similar get out clause), but thinks it is justified for the protection of health or morals. The justifications are at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/016/en/08016x-s.htm#index_link_296 .

So we do at least have something, but unfortunately it has this get out clause, and obviously doesn't have anywhere near the same influence and strength as the First Amendment.

However i'm sure i've read somewhere that in the European Convention on Human Rights there is a "right for children not to be sexualized in fiction". That is, child pornographic drawings are illegal. As i said i'm not 100% sure on this, but some members (sweden for example) has already criminalized possession of child pornographic drawings.

I can't find this in the text, although one could see a country trying to do so under the get out clause. Note that the EHCR doesn't stop countries passing laws that violate it it - it would have to be challenged in court (much like the US where laws are passed then struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). I believe this is unfortunately time consuming and costly. I don't know if anyone's done this yet for laws regarding fictional child drawings.

Fictional child drawings aren't illegal everywhere in the EU - they were considering it in the UK, but they are (for now at least) only criminalising non-realistic images that have been derived from (already illegal) realistic child porn images (as it happens, in the same bill as the "extreme porn" plans).