FInland Proposes Editorial Culpability for Web Content

Sandstorm writes "Electronic Frontier Finland ry has an interesting article about a proposed law in the Finnish parliament on liabilities in public communications. Among other alarming things, the proposed law would require all web publications to have an editor-in-chief, who would have a criminal responsibility for all material published in his publication. That would include discussion on web boards and force editors on sites like /. preview and censor all comments before displaying them."

Comments

just dumb

[retards]

I really wonder about laws of this kind. Do the lawmakers really think about the implications of this? I don't mean that "Big Brother"-shit, I mean, people will not abide by this law because it is too cumbersome. People will not archive every revision of their personal homepage just because they happen to have a small webserver and the law says they have to. I sure as hell won't. Come arrest me.

This kind of civil disobedience may seem trivial, but what happens when lots of people lose respect for the law in other areas because they deem (correctly) that the lawmakers are totally clueless about modern society?

When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the same time? IDIOTS!

Re:just dumb

[signifying nothing]

When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the same time? IDIOTS!

I don't disagree with your conclusions (IDIOTS), but how does a market economy come into this?

It is certainly the case that Orwellian government and an informed & educated populace cannot co-exist in the long-term.

Fortunately, recent history suggests that a better-informed populace can bring about the downfall of an Orwellian government, but that an Orwellian government cannot permanently keep a population ill-informed and ill-educated.

A market economy is possible with or without any of the above.

Re:just dumb

[retards]

A market economy is possible with or without any of the above.

I disagree, because a market economy depends on the freedom of it's consumers. If people aren't allowed to act freely they analogously they can't consume freely, either.

A government can't allow people to think at work but not at home and still expect to reap all of the so-called benefits of the free market. Why? Because people WILL think at home. Why? Because they have and education. They have television. They have the Internet. I really can't see a modern economy which clamps down ONLY on it's consumers and still expects them to go to the shopping mall and keep the ball rolling.

China would be an example of a country whose government is totalitarian and at the same time attempting to implement a market economy. How many years do YOU give the Communist Pary? I give it five at the most.

Re:just dumb

[Alsee]

Do the lawmakers really think about the implications of this?

You can't think about something you don't understand. Someone mumbles something about a "problem" with internet "publications". They don't know ANYTHING about the internet, so the fill in the only meaning of publication they know - books, magazines, and newspapers. That's why they think having legally responsible editors makes sense. And achival requirements seem reasonable. Etc etc etc.

They simply have no clue that the internet can be the equivilant of conversations in a clubhouse (messages areas, this post for example), a diary (blogs), an entirely new form of charity/social service (FAQs, knowledges bases, and help forums), support groups, pure artistic expression, scientific work, social activism, policical commentary, all sorts of hobbies, and many many other things.

I think *most* legislators try to do the right thing. They are passing laws regulating something they don't understand. And screwing it up badly.

-

Re:The background

[villoks]

Hi,

It's stil unclear if there's enough time before the elections to pass this law.

Unfortunately that is not the case with the national EUCD-implentation. The chairman of the committee of culture and education (Suvi Linden) has decided that they won't ask the opinion from the constitutional commitee, which would have taken too long to finish the law in time before the elections.

Electronic Frontier Finland is launching a last minute campaign to get certain improvements to the law and also the preserve the good parts like no protection for the DVD country codes and the legality of personal circumvetion. If you want to do your part, please join the effi-aktivistit mailing list!

Ville Oksanen
Vice Chairman, EFFI ry

Anonymous Book

[moc.tfosorcimgllib]

Another point is that the Finnish telecom, (Sonera) got thoroughly blasted by an anonymous book first published on the web. The book seemed credible enough, and later a police investigation showed that the security department of Sonera had been scanning the e-mail and the phone calls of the employees, without their consent. Probably this was done by a pissed-off employee. However, a big company got in trouble because the net allowed fast spreading of the book, and there was no way to press the publisher.

This really disturbs me with the implications. Publishing a book anonymously on the web with no editor is a big responsibility.
This is a freedom that should be protected, but continue to keep it unregulated. This presents a possiblity to publish good books ("The Jungle", where an industry should improve for health reasons) before a huge crisis ensues (Think Enron), or it could be misused (The Globe, National Inquirer, etc.).
It would simultanously be a great loss and huge gain if you held no liability for what was said on the internet.

These lawmakers need a brain transplant...

[Tuxinatorium]

"Among other alarming things, the proposed law would require all web publications to have an editor-in-chief, who would have a criminal responsibility for all material published in his publication. That would include discussion on web boards and force editors on sites like /. preview and censor all comments before displaying them."

That's the most absurd law I ever heard of. That's exactly like blaming the telephone company when some psycho makes threatening calls to someone. They just have no respect for the immunity of unmoderated mediums anymore.

...interprets censorship as damage and ...

[unitron]

Okay, so Finland won't have any decent web sites anymore, but do they think that they can either impose this law on sites in other countries (rotsa ruck) or block access for the entire nation to sites in other countries? What if someone makes a long distance call to a dial up provider in France or Sweden or wherever? (Yeah I know that gets expensive really fast but some people will do it anyway.) Even China's having trouble keeping their people from checking out un-authorized sites, how's a country like Finland where the populace doesn't fear a bullet in the back of the head for any little infraction going to handle the uproar over blocked sites? It's not as though they can keep people from finding out that there are sites to which they are being denied access.