Slashdot Mirror

The closest thing of the "EU" definiton of rights is the European Convention on Human Rights. The first few sentences of the convention includes the descriptions of "universal", "fundamental" in relation with rights.

The grandparent post merely said that ultimately governments and the people are those who enforce rights, whether we consider them inalienable or not.

1. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.
[...]
19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:
19.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;
19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
19.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
19.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;
19.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

thus far, the law (CA 1934, CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 153(h)(1991), etc.) does not differentiate between a "communications provider" that uses voice or analog signal, and one that does packet pushing for data

The FCC and the Supreme Court seem to have decided upon a different interpretation. The court upheld the FCC's interpretation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

This quote is interesting:

The Court seemed to be somewhat uncomfortable, however, with the fact that the FCC's holding imposed common carrier obligations on high-speed digital subscriber line ("DSL") offerings by telephone companies, but not cable modem services--which compete head-to-head in the US internet access market.

and would indicate that the broadband offerings made by the Telcos are subject to common carriage regulation, whereas the cable outfits managed to avoid it. If that ruling still holds, it might put a bee in AT&T's bonnet.

I thought we had signed up to make the european court the highest court in the land sometime ago

I thought we had signed up to make the european court the highest court in the land sometime ago

I think this is near the limits of what the European Court of Human Rights can accept.

In defending the law proposal they are referring to the Spanner case where the European Court of Human Rights (the next instance after a divided ruling in the highest UK court) said that the legality of people whipping each other in a consensual way should be left to UK souverenity, although the UK courts had ruled it illegal.

To me this looks as if the UK it trying to see if this human rights decision can be extended to include cases where somebody is in possession of pornographic material depicting such acts.

The key word in that Wikipedia article from which you cite is arbitrarily. The Moscow case was primarily lost before the EU Court of Human Rights because Scientology had religious status in Russia before, and the Russian government said: "We changed the standards, come up with documentation that you still are a religion".

If you read the court decision itself, you will find that the court is very upset with the arbitrary revocation of previously granted rights, and that it moreover states that its judgment is for this particular case only.

Sides that cry that the EU has validated Scientology as a religion by this judgment would do well to not trust the secondary sources and go read the judgment itself. I can't link it unfortunately, as the website of the page does not accept direct links to documents, but here is the link to the search page. Just search for 'Scientology' (second case in the results list).

It was a ECHR case - you can find it using the search engine at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?sessi onid=10093903&skin=hudoc-en if you put "scientology" in as the case name.

Skimming the case, I would think that it could prevent Council of Europe members discriminating against Scientology on grounds of its religious beliefs. However discriminating against it on the grounds of its (non-religious) practices and past actions could be acceptable.

From the European declarayion of human rights: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html /005.htm Article 10 - Freedom of expression1 1. 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. 2. 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. As far as I see it hate speech would be legal unless it was likely to incite crime or infringe the rights of others.

Well, here is the list of suckers so far.

A little disappointed to see Canada on there, but at least we didn't x the "signature without reservation as to ratification" box like the US did.

Anyway from my attempt at reading the treaty, it seems like all it *requires* is a country to make it possible for it's "competent authorities" to be able to record data when requested to do so. It doesn't say service providers are required to do more than facilitate this recording. See Article 20 and Article 21. This is still a pretty major loss of privacy, but not something we haven't seen before.

As for enforcing foreign laws and cooperate liability? I'm not seeing what the author claims on this one either. It looks like the country is expected to enact certain laws (nothing to do with Nazis), and make sure that there is always an entity responsible, even if it is a cooperation. Check your facts slashdot!!!

Ahh well, this whole thing, if it gets implemented, it will immediately cease to be that important as everyone rolls out strong end to end encryption in response. And thats probably a good thing if you think about it.

Well, here is the list of suckers so far.

A little disappointed to see Canada on there, but at least we didn't x the "signature without reservation as to ratification" box like the US did.

Anyway from my attempt at reading the treaty, it seems like all it *requires* is a country to make it possible for it's "competent authorities" to be able to record data when requested to do so. It doesn't say service providers are required to do more than facilitate this recording. See Article 20 and Article 21. This is still a pretty major loss of privacy, but not something we haven't seen before.

As for enforcing foreign laws and cooperate liability? I'm not seeing what the author claims on this one either. It looks like the country is expected to enact certain laws (nothing to do with Nazis), and make sure that there is always an entity responsible, even if it is a cooperation. Check your facts slashdot!!!

Ahh well, this whole thing, if it gets implemented, it will immediately cease to be that important as everyone rolls out strong end to end encryption in response. And thats probably a good thing if you think about it.

this treaty is old news but as far as i can tell not enforced as such, i.e. we don't have terabytes of packet captures laying around my cubicle. bleh. just read the article and it doesn't even link the treaty http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html /185.htm happy reading! oh and for the USA signing it, we did back in 2004! can you say old news? how do i get to tag stuff? OFN! http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8529

It is called the European Court of Human Rights. Although dreadfully inconvenient for some, all EU countries must sign the Human Rights treaty. It cannot stop a country from going to war but it can protect the citizens of the country from its excesses.

I'm all for a protected darknet, but wouldn't the recently signed Cybercrime Treaty compel Swedish authorities to hand over information demanded by other governments? It seems like the U.S. could ask for traffic information to be recorded (as under U.S. law), and that the Swedish ISP would be forced to comply. ...I hope not, (and I haven't had the time for an in-depth reading of the treaty articles) but that's what the overview makes it sound like.

./ story here,
List of signatories (Council of Europe site)

There doesn't seem to actually be a list out there, but from grinding through various pages, these are the countries I believe are part of the treaty:

Albania (13.07.1995)
Andorra (10.11.1994)
Armenia (25.01.2001)
Austria (16.04.1956)
Azerbaijan (25.01.2001)
Belgium (05.05.1949)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (24.04.2002)
Bulgaria (07.05.1992)
Croatia (06.11.1996)
Cyprus (24.05.1961)
Czech Republic (30.06.1993)
Denmark (05.05.1949)
Estonia (14.05.1993)
Finland (05.05.1989)
France (05.05.1949)
Georgia (27.04.1999)
Germany (13.07.1950)
Greece (09.08.1949)
Hungary (06.11.1990)
Iceland (07.03.1950)
Ireland (05.05.1949)
Italy (05.05.1949)
Latvia (10.02.1995)
Liechtenstein (23.11.1978)
Lithuania (14.05.1993)
Luxembourg (05.05.1949)
Malta (29.04.1965)
Moldova (13.07.1995)
Monaco (05.10.2004)
Netherlands (05.05.1949)
Norway (05.05.1949)
Poland (26.11.1991)
Portugal (22.09.1976)
Romania (07.10.1993)
Russian Federation (28.02.1996)
San Marino (16.11.1988)
Serbia (03.04.2003)
Slovakia (30.06.1993)
Slovenia (14.05.1993)
Spain (24.11.1977)
Sweden (05.05.1949)
Switzerland (06.05.1963)
"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (09.11.1995)
Turkey (09.08.1949)
Ukraine (09.11.1995)
United Kingdom (05.05.1949)

As well as United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa.

Information whored from Treaty, Member States of CoE, this particular line of the treaty: "The member States of the Council of Europe and the other States signatory hereto," and the original article.

There doesn't seem to actually be a list out there, but from grinding through various pages, these are the countries I believe are part of the treaty:

Albania (13.07.1995)
Andorra (10.11.1994)
Armenia (25.01.2001)
Austria (16.04.1956)
Azerbaijan (25.01.2001)
Belgium (05.05.1949)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (24.04.2002)
Bulgaria (07.05.1992)
Croatia (06.11.1996)
Cyprus (24.05.1961)
Czech Republic (30.06.1993)
Denmark (05.05.1949)
Estonia (14.05.1993)
Finland (05.05.1989)
France (05.05.1949)
Georgia (27.04.1999)
Germany (13.07.1950)
Greece (09.08.1949)
Hungary (06.11.1990)
Iceland (07.03.1950)
Ireland (05.05.1949)
Italy (05.05.1949)
Latvia (10.02.1995)
Liechtenstein (23.11.1978)
Lithuania (14.05.1993)
Luxembourg (05.05.1949)
Malta (29.04.1965)
Moldova (13.07.1995)
Monaco (05.10.2004)
Netherlands (05.05.1949)
Norway (05.05.1949)
Poland (26.11.1991)
Portugal (22.09.1976)
Romania (07.10.1993)
Russian Federation (28.02.1996)
San Marino (16.11.1988)
Serbia (03.04.2003)
Slovakia (30.06.1993)
Slovenia (14.05.1993)
Spain (24.11.1977)
Sweden (05.05.1949)
Switzerland (06.05.1963)
"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (09.11.1995)
Turkey (09.08.1949)
Ukraine (09.11.1995)
United Kingdom (05.05.1949)

As well as United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa.

Information whored from Treaty, Member States of CoE, this particular line of the treaty: "The member States of the Council of Europe and the other States signatory hereto," and the original article.

Read this and realize the USA is a party to this as well.

It's not in YRO because in the UK we don't have rights, enshrined in a constitutional document

Yes you do, it's called the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (and often European Convention of Human Rights, although that means the acronym ECHR is overloaded with the European Court of Human Rights, which is charged by the Council of Europe with enforcing the Convention).

All Council of Europe countries must subscribe to the Convention. All European Union member states must also be members of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is not a body of the European Union -- it is a proper superset of the EU member-states.

The aquis communitaire (the common-law and regulations of the European Union) and the Convention treaty have obliged the UK to protect human and civil rights in the UK even where that conflicted with UK law or jurisprudence. The same has been true of the Council of Europe states since 1950.

The sets of treaties and rulings obliging the UK to adhere to the Convention are beyond the easy reach of Parliament, and are thus effectively part of the unconsolidated UK constitution.

Individual access to the Court has been available to all Council of Europe nationals since Protocol 11 came into force on 1 November 1988. The Court has regularly required Convention states to adjust national laws since then.

In the UK, the process was made simpler with the proclamation of the Human Rights Act (1988) which came into effect on 2 October 2000. The Human Rights Act makes it possible to seek remedy for breaches of Convention rights within the UK court system. In effect, it requires the various courts in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man to interpret local laws consistently with the Convention, and allows the appeals courts to issue declarations of incompatibility against Acts of Parliament. This is a back-handed way of instituting primacy of the Convention in UK law -- the Human Rights Act does not allow the appeals courts to strike down laws passed by Parliament, but the declaration of incompatibility effectively estops lower courts from enforcing them, and pretty much guarantees that a subsequent appeal to the European Court of Human Rights would oblige the UK to alter or repeal the law in question per its treaty obligations.

The English courts in particular have been looking more and more like those in Canada since the 1982 adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although the latter is more explicit about the teeth being given to the judiciary in protecting human rights. Among various statutes and practices declared incompatible were Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, and the ability of the Home Secretary (a politician) to participate in judicial sentencing.

Moreover, the current UK government has strangely been markedly positive in its support of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It has no legal weight at this time, but the proposed Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe incorporated the Chater and would have the EU and all its member-states formally subject itself and align its justice system (and those of its member-states) with the European Court of Human Rights. This would further strengthen the legal changes unleashed by the proclamation of the Human Rights Act (1998).

Unfortunately there is substantial split-personality disorder rampant in the UK government. In particular, the Home Office seems to do little other than produce proposed legislation and regulation which are obviously against the spirit (and sometimes the letter) of the Convention. The politicians put in charge of the Home Office apparently cave in to the militant authoritarians entrenched in the ministry itself.

Coincidentally, Liberty today published

Article 6.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Council of Europe) states:

"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

You can read the entire convention here

1. 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.

2 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.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial
1. [entitlement to a fair and public trial]
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. [...]

Realizing that you're a huge troll I still think you need a reply since most people will believe your "facts".
No, Germans don't have to accept jobs at brothels. The case you're refering to was actually a matter of the right to post the jobs on the lists of the public employment agency.

You don't know squat about the European Union - it's not responsible for religious freedoms, that's actually a matter of national sovereignty. We also have the common European Human Rights Convention maintained by the Council of Europe organization - which is not associated with the EU.

In France it's illegal to use the 'hijab' covering one's hair [in school] not the tentlike 'burka'. And being a just nation of equal rights no other religion is given preference - so no religious symbol is allowed *in school* if it's deemed excessive and provocative. In fact religion is considered so private they're not allowed to collect statistics on the subject. On the other hand the government of France funds national Christian, Jewish and Muslim organizations.

The European Human Rights convention and it's additional protocols (optional) give European citizens [regardless of European Union membership] a far greater catalogue of civil rights than any U.S. American citizen will ever have. Your attack on France is quite ironic considering the French constitution is based upon the ideals of the American revolution. Don't forget that the British are also European Union members - do you consider them any less free?

No, I believe most European view the US a bastion of brainwashed religious fanatics fighting to create their own version of the Iranian Islamic Republic. It's fun to watch Americans criticize other nations for lack of freedoms - when in fact the only freedom you have left is the right to shout your support for your current regime. In more and more ways your nation is becoming more and more alike what your nation opposes. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". - I would say you're well on your way to loosing all of them. But then again nobody notices until it's too late.

The European Union constitution was not approved and as such the matter of including references to Christianity has not been settled. I guess you don't know as much as you thought you did?

• European Constitution
  
• European Court of Human Rights

Well, here in Europe, we have an supernational court that handles the abuses against human rights that is conducted by governments. This means that human rights legislation that is supernational overrides national legislation.

There have been several times, when especially individuals have had their rights trampled on by governments, after the national measures (of suing the government for example) are exhausted, one can turn to the ECHR and sue the state.

For a list of cases if you doubt the link between the right of suing the government and human rights, refer to http://www.echr.coe.int/echr

Also, it is a matter of principle and vital for the rule of law that no one, especially the law makers should be above the law. Not being able to sue the government makes the government above the law, which is a bad thing.

And if individuals should be able to sue the government, why should not companies be able to? Imagine, a one or two man firm that is damaged by the government unlawfully confiscating the firms' property. Should they not be able to complain about this in the legal system the same way as an individual. And what would make this any different from a large company suing the government?

The right of individuals and companies suing the government is vital to the rule of law, human rights and democracy, since it ensures that no one is above the law.

Yes, in theory you're right - but in practice there are quite many examples where the treaties indeed haven't been implemented in the member states' laws - you would still eventually win your case, but not before you had appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which would then judge if your countrie is breaking your rights. There's quite many cases on the site BTW - the case database is online for all your reading delight!

No, neither is access to paper to print on, or printing presses, but we still take for granted that the government should not seize printing presses based on what ideas they were used to disseminate, and that that is a natural continuation of a basic human right, the freedom of expression (UN Declaration of the Human Rights, article 19, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]).

So, if you regulate the Internet to weed out uncomfortable ideas, you are indeed violating the UN declaration of the Human Rights, to which I believe China is a party.

I wonder how this relates to software patents. Really.

If there is any chance for those of us who are EU citizens to go to the European Court of Human Rights. (Against potential future swpat laws)

Is there a difference between being required by law to answer what your friends and co-workers did, when questioned by FBI agents or the court and being required by law to visit a police station daily and report what your friends and co-workers did?

The difference (if you think there is any) is the same as between compulsory registration (propiska) and people being able to follow you (and risk stalking charges) and find where you live (if you do not actively attempt to prevent it by shaking them off).

The UK is often being slapped down these days because of its draconian 'anti-terrorist' laws like imprisonment without trial... we have out own camp X-Ray called Belmarsh, and the EU Court has basically ordered the government to close it

1. The European Court of Human Rights, which rules on human rights issues. This an institution of the Council of Europe. It is not an EU institution. All EU member states belong to the Council of Europe, but the converse is not true; e.g. Russia is a member of the Council of Europe (see member states)
2. The European Court of Justice, which rules on European law.

... "the Maronite community ... but the Holy See's recent contacts with the administrative authorities for humanitarian purposes will probably not be enough to avoid the community's extinction since no births have been recorded since Turkey's military intervention and the
average age of Maronites is now 72." ...

... "The surveillance effected by the authorities even extended to the physical presence of State agents in the homes of Greek Cypriots on the occasion of social or other visits paid by third parties, including family members." ...

Conclusions from that report, the invaded Christian communities are being destroyed by Turkish policy. As if that is not enough they are not even allowed visitors without government surveillance, to keep actions of these policy of destruction from coming to international detection.

That site he linked to is affiliated with the Turkish government.

On the Turkish Press site(http://www.turkishpress.com/) I read months ago a story about another forsnet site like that but about the Armenian genocide, it was a site that spread Armenian genocide denial(http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/) and it talked about how a Turkish university was involved with the site. Another such site is http://www.turk-yunan.gen.tr. I have lost the book mark and cannot find that article from searching.

With common sense, who besides a government could possibly bankroll such a huge network of sites, that are also available in four languages. Just because the Turk you are talking to is being an Islamic fanatic with a smile, does not make him nice.

This sounds like a case for The European Cort of Human Rights. Turkey is very eager to join the EU and recently got promises that they could at least start talks with the EU about membership. This was after the EU recognized that Turkey had done progress with regards to human rights (they have had a very dark past with regards to womens' rights, minorities rights, police torture of dissidents, forbidding kurds to publish media in their own language etc). The EU have said that they have to do more though, there are still incidents of torture in Turkish prisons for instance, and opression of kurds.

With the political preassure on the Turkish government, this guy might actually have a chance if enough people raise hell.

I personally will write letter to the court about this case, and I will also contact Amnesty International in Sweden about this.

I urge other Slashdot readers to take similar action.

The moderation of your comment is a prime example of Wiki's weaknesses, no information in your post to back up your assertions, yet someone still moderates you interesting

It's true that the Danish penal code has parts regarding libel, slander, threats, etc. just as many other countries (penal code - "Straffeloven" - 266). This paragraph also contains a note regarding the above issues aimed at groups because of their race, color, ethnicity, faith or sexual orientation. Personally I don't think it's that different from targeting individuals (but hey, I'm a Dane :). The paragraph has been discussed now and then in the public, but the borders are actually quite wide. It's nothing like Germany or France (.. I pressume)

Besides, this has nothing to do with press freedom. A Danish nazi party is actually allowed to run their own radio station at the ordinary FM-band.

We did have an interesting case though regarding a radio documentary in 1985, where an interviewer talked with a bunch of young, declared racists ("Greenjackets"), spreading their racism. At first the interviewer was convicted of spreading racism at a lower court, but after appealing through the system (and even losing at Danish supreme court), he tried his case in front of the European Court of Human Rights which concluded that even though some of the statements made by the Greenjackets would be racist, the broadcast itself wasn't. You can read the entire case online.

It's actually a bit surprising when documentaries like Fahrenheit 9/11 (or, on a more serious level, Control Room), show how news are presented in the US. I think that many Danes weren't that surprised viewing these documentaries, because the Danish press already used several sources, meaning that a lot of the "surprising stories" in these documentaries weren't that surprising at all, since a lot of the footage had already been shown in public media.

I am pretty worried of US citizens believing that each and every single thing about US is the best in the world. We have a more free press, less corruption, a head of government elected by popular vote, but since we live in a world where people appearently get their "entire facts" based on one or two incidents (which is pretty usual at Slashdot - think of all the posts regarding any topic, where one would find a random incident about a webserver, a company, a product and continuously beat that argument in a manner like "How can you say this product is good, since (link to some old event)?"), nothing of this matters. It only matters if people are able to use Google to find that little piece of information, they care about and judge the rest of the world by that.

In point 5, Neil Gunton cogently observes in the last sentence "A commercial company, on the other hand, can afford to scratch the personal itches of its end-users, because the end-users are the ones paying the bills.". This very true, and I think it provides a useful illustration of a means by which an Open Source company can make money by directly selling software.

I too think that it is very important that we create a cash-flow ASAP, and that it should run through as few hands as possible between the end user and developers.

I think it is vital for the sustainability of Free Software that as many as possible can make a living from writing software directly.

One way to do it, is to convince PHBs that the way of the future is not buying products: "Products are bad, they may or may not do what you want", instead "you can take a free system, which almost do what you need, and pay someone to include the features you need, then, out of enlightened self interest, these changes are submitted back to the project".

German government did this with e.g. Project Ägypten, by paying a small number of small contractors. It works absolutely great, I use it myself often, and it worked great for the developers too. That way, you wouldn't get paid as a charity (which I agree is not a very nice prospect), but you're working with a proper contract. I think if this was common thinking, it would employ a lot of programmers and assure that Free Software would remain prosperous for foreseeable future.

The second thing is that end-users could team up and pay developers to add features they really like to have. For high-profile projects such as Mozilla, KDE and GNOME, I think this could provide very significant income for many developers, who could make a living simply by responding to user wishes.

Third, we need voluntary micropayments. Toss a .1 to developers now and then. It could accumulate to become significant, and while it may not provide a full-time income, it could get a newbie started.

Finally, I have this possibly socialist idea that governments should employ hackers rather than lawyers to find technological rather than legal fixes to obvious problems.... For example, the European Commission is trying to extend the right to reply to online media. While present proposal is not as totally hopeless as the first one, it is still unhealthy. Instead, what they should do is to hire a bunch of hackers to replace the very limited "right to reply" with an RDF based almost unlimited opportunity to reply.

The Constitution is worth fighting and dying for.

I had a lot of time to think about stuff like this during my military service. Lots of nights on guard staring out in the black with nothing to do.

I came to the conclusion that whatever it is, the willingness to kill or die for something is a sure sign of that you have simply become too fanatical.

Once you've accepted that something is worth killing or dying for, you will also become easier to manipulate. Don't give me that "no. not me". I know better than that. I've been manipulated too. There are always other ways to correct things, and many chances have been lost if you come to the point were you see no other alternative than violence. Just don't let them pass by.

The moment it becomes just another piece of paper we use to wipe our ass with

AFAICS, Bush is wiping his ass with your Constitution every day. Are you going to do something about it? Or are you just going to write about it on /. and let the chances slip by?

To say that either France or Germany, or any country which uses the government to muzzle it's citizenry is just as free as America is fucking ludicrous.

Yup. Sure. Try saying something like sex abstinence programs is meaningless at best, according to all recognized international research. Then come back and report how far you got. If you report success, then we can start talking about the relative merits of free speech in different jurisdictions.

In Europe, like in the US, the ideal is to counter speech with speech. In fact, there's the European Court of Human Rights, and there has been rulings that saying things like "All imigrants should be sterilized upon arrival" is protected speech. It is quite unlikely that many of the proposed things will stand up in that court.

Let the politicians get on with the censorship stuff for a couple of years. It'll fail, and they'll realize it. Then, they'll be more receptive.

I have lobbied for government funding of a project that aims to use RDF to provide metadata to make it easier to find opposing viewpoints, and so fulfil the ideal of counter speech with speech. It has met some interest, but far from enough to get it off the ground. But that's the kind of things that geeks can do to preserve freedom of speech.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an 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.

2. 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 the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

France is a signatory to the Convention though I have no idea how (or indeed if) it is implemented in French law directly.

Translating those bullet points from business blabber to geek speak...

Coordinating with the Homeland Security Department to improve information sharing between business and government on cyber threats
Promising that their security products have appropirate government backdoors.

Improving corporate governance of information security
Making sure companies are required to purchase more of their products.

Improving federal procurement practices and guidelines
Making sure the government purchases more of their products.

Identifying gaps in cybersecurity research and development
Encuraging government research to do R&D for them.

Collaborating with U.S. and international standards development organizations to support emerging technology standards and specifications for cybersecurity
Making sure that add-on products are always standard equipment, rather than fixing OS flaws.

Supporting campaigns to improve awareness of cybersecurity
Encuraging the government to help with their marketing.

Supporting cybersecurity academic and workforce development programs
Ensuring an even further oversupply of tech workers is created so their labor costs stay low.

Pursuing Senate ratification of the Council of Europe's Convention on Cyber-Crime.
Talk the Senate into approving this thing here that mandates international cooperation in anti-hacking investigations.

Actually [IANAL but am studying to become one :], I think article 10 of The European Convention on Human Rights applies better here, the European Court of Human Rights has more power than the UN in these matters.

# Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an 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 the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

More info here and some judgements and decisions here. Also, I'm not sure, but I think that the European Court of Justice (part of the EU) can use the ECHR treaty in it's rulings.

Did you read the amendment, the Additional Protocol? It's here.

Notes for discussion as to whether or not this actually "bans ideas":

1. The amendment to the convention on cybercrime does not impact on the "wide swathe of ideas" you claim. On the contrary, it's very narrow, and relates primarily to criminal intent.
2. To summarise more precisely: the amendment requires ratifying nations to create an offence of "distributing, or otherwise making available" material which "advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence".
3. This is repression of expression. It is a restriction on the freedom of expression. For sure. However, to quote your article:

   We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open.

   I argue that incitement to hatred, violence and discrimination is not truth. It is true that those concepts and acts, and their corresponding acts of incitement exist, but they have no intrinsic truth of themselves.

4. Inciting hatred and violence barely qualifies as an idea, except inasmuch as it can be described; in practice, it's more of an act, similar to criminal acts of conspiracy. As the notes provided on the amendment say,

   13. The definition contained in Article 2 of this Protocol refers to certain conduct to which the content of the material may lead, rather than to the expression of feelings/belief/aversion as contained in the material concerned.

   The language "advocates, promotes or incites" is very important. Can I put this more clearly? An example of what is outlawed by this measure might be the statement "Go out and kill Americans, and I will give you some money". This is not an idea; it is an instruction, an act of conspiracy.

5. Since you're fond of digging up old articles, here's one more, from 1997, which says:

   The Dutch government will not be adopting a law in the near future making Holocaust denial a criminal offense. According to the left-wing liberal Justice Minister Winnie Sorgrdrager, the law would not be an effective means to fight against "false and tasteless opinions." At the same time, the justice minister expressed her concern about the revival of fascist ideology in Europe.

6. The Additional Protocol does not require the denial of the Holocaust, which however vile and distasteful does qualify as an idea that we may sometimes be forced to discuss, to be an offence (Article 6.2 is the get-out clause).

Now, under Dutch law, incitement to hatred is already a criminal offence, and denying the Holocaust in certain ways has been interpreted judicially as falling under that legislation. (Holocaust denial is almost invariably an incitement to aggressive neo-Nazi groups).

So perhaps I will revise my statement and put it in context. There is nothing you can't say, but if you harm others with your statements - through incitement to violence, or discrimination - then you may be liable.

- Joshua.

Just to get a more official view:

Quoted from European Convention on Human Rights (available in several languages)

Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Are European courts really that tied together?

Are European courts really that tied together?

Oh yes there is: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

You were looking at an OLDER draft, not a newer one

Look here to see the actual modifications made to the draft. Note that the parts limiting it to "professional media" are struck out. It now applies to ALL online media.

-

A sample quote "Aware at the same time that it may not be necessary to extend the right of reply to non-professional on-line media whose influence on public opinion is limited;"

I'd just like to echo two blog posts I made, an initial comment and a clarification after seeing how excited people were getting about this.

Summarizing, despite the fact I have one of the most stringent definitions of censorship I know of, this doesn't fit as long as it remains as limited in scope as it actually is. There are a lot of ways to screw this up, but the actual proposal (which should have been linked in the Slashdot article!) actually manages to avoid the traps. As such, this can qualify as a bona-fide cultural difference without destroying the world.

Now, be sure you understand that my approval is fragile and the things that people are reading into the proposal, since they didn't RTFProposal, are indeed scary and it's heartening to see people responding to that. But the limited proposal as it stands is not really a threat, until it is expanded.

(If you are against it because you feel it will inevitably expand into unethical extremes, well, I'd say the odds of that are pretty decent too so I would definately respect that view of things.)

Declan McCullagh's link to the final version of the proposal is broken. I would like to read it. Has anybody else bothered to look for it?

Are opinions included? Am I allowed to say "I don't like you" or do I have to post your rebuttal?

The proposed regulation refers to an earlier resolution from 1974.

Somone only has a right of reply only if something about him has been presented as a fact (so opinions are not included), and if he thinks it's wrong. That's a pretty strong requirement. Yes, you can still safely say "I don't like you" because it's clearly an opinion.

The reply also doesn't need to be published if it "is not limited to a correction of the facts challenged," or at least national laws don't have to grant a right of reply in that case. So even if you consider "I don't like you" a fact, the only thing that the person to whom you're saying that could force you to publish is somthing like: "Dear limekiller4, on your website you have published that you don't like me. This is wrong and a misrepresentation of facts. The truth is that you do like me. Sincerely, ..."

Are business covered?

Yes.

Do they have to post replies from their competitors?

I don't know.

If a company claims that their product works, is that tacit criticism of someone who says that it does not?

No.

If the company simply writes "our product works," they don't mention any other person, so there simply isn't anyone who might have a right of reply.

If on the other hand they write "XYZ said that our product doesn't work, but that's wrong, it does work," than the only thing presented about XYZ as a fact is that he said something, so if he didn't say that, he might have a right of reply where the reply might be something like "I did not say that your product does not work."

If they write something like "XYZ, who never even used our product, said that it doesn't work, ..." than XYZ very likely does have a right of reply and could force the company to publish something like "I did use your product."

What if the criticism is oblique? "Other products aren't as fast as the Super Widget 2003" Who gets to reply?

No one. No person is mentioned.

I don't understand all this fuss about blogs, etc. The recommendation, as presently worded, clearly applies only to 'professional on-line media' (see below).

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.

The word "professional" was dropped from the revised draft. It now reads:

the term "on-line media" means any natural or legal person or other entity whose [main] activity is to engage in the collection, editing and dissemination of information to the public via the Internet, such as on-line news portals or bulletins;

Note especially the addition at the end which seems to include weblogs.