Europe To Force Right of Reply On Internet Communication

David Buck writes "Today, the Council of Europe (an influential quasi-governmental body that drafts conventions and treaties) is to finalize a proposal that would force all Internet news organizations, moderated mailing lists and even web logs (blogs) to allow a right of response to any person or organization they criticize. This would mean that you would be required to post the responses as well as authenticate their origin and make the responses available for some period of time. This will likely have a chilling effect on Internet communication (at least in Europe)."

Comments

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[sebi]

If I criticise SCO my Slashdot journal, and me being based in Europe, SCO demanded that I give them the right of reply, what does it entail?

When they respond you would have to do a new journal entry. It would start with a disclaimer along the lines of 'according to blabla I have to present the following. The views following express the opinions of SCO and are not mine.' Then you would print whatever they sent you. To actually force you to post their rebuttal they almost certainly need some kind of ruling by a judge. You can clearly mark what is from them and still write your opinions before and after.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[morzel]

I'm not sure for the rest of Europe, but at least in Belgium there is the so-called "Recht van antwoord" (ie: right to reply).
Basically, it states that you are always entitled to a response at no cost in the publication that has criticized you, to give the readers both sides of the story.

If some paper/magazine writes a critical article on your person or organization, this gives you the right to post your rebuttal to the same audience that read the initial article - which seems OK for me.

Re:Newspapers too?

[Jugalator]

Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe?

From the article (RTFA ;-)):

"A 1974 Council of Europe resolution says "a newspaper, a periodical, a radio or television broadcast" must offer a right of reply. Most European countries have enacted that right, with a German law--compiled by the U.K. nonprofit group Presswiseâ"that offers a typical example: A publisher is "obliged to publish a counter-version or reply by the person or party affected."

Slight exaggerations..

[k98sven]

First up, I don't agree with this proposal at all, but it seems apparent that there are some exaggerations here.

First, this proposal seems to be aimed at protecting the individual from slander by business, not vice-versa.

Second, I don't see how this relates to blogs.. the draft specifically says "professional on-line media":
The right of reply, and in particular the principles of Resolution (74) 26, should apply not only to the press, radio and television, but also to professional on-line media.

and in the "definitions":
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

Headline ,isleading, this is far from a done deal

[fname]

The Slashdot headline is misleading, this is far from set in stone. The Council of Europ has only influence, it has no legislative authoriity. There already is Right-of-Reply for most print publicaitons in Europe, but some countries, such as Great Britian, have not enacted those laws.

This is just a suggestion of an influential body. The proposal may be accepted in part or in whole by all, some or none of the European member countries.

Personally, I hope it dies a painful death, and maybe the Europeans can eliminate right of reply all around. Print and the internet aren't TV-- there's no scarcity involved. This just sounds like a bureacratic (sp!) nightmare, a feel-good proposal that has the government meddle where there is no need.

Thank goodness for the 1st amendment, which keeps silly laws like this (we have other kinds of silly laws) out of the USA.

Please, read what all this is REALLY about.

[Vajsvarana]

You'll find the latest draft here:

Note what the trollish C/Net editor skips in its article:

Reaffirming that the minimum rules in the appendix to Resolution (74) 26 do not go beyond granting a right of reply with respect of factual statements claimed to be inaccurate and that, as a consequence, the on-line dissemination of opinions and ideas falls outside the scope of this Recommendation;

"Reaffirming" refers to the Resolution (74) 26 where it is well specified that only false statements are affected by this "right to reply".

So the rest of the article is just C/Net trolling.

Re:Man, and it was objective right up to the end..

[kisak]

Europe lacks a First Amendment and the respect for limited government, private property and free enterprise that America still enjoys.

EU is build on the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the national states in the EU have to make sure that their national laws don't conflict with the Human Rights, and EU citizens can take their case to the European Court of Human Rights if they feel that their Human Right is violated by an European country (for instance, free speech). This document is of course also the foundation of the UN and has its philosophical basis in the philosophers of the enlightenment (the most important of them being French philosophers) which lead to the French revolution and the American Constitution. Paragraph 19 of the Human Rights Charter states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So, it is very wrong to state that EU lacks a "First Amendment".

The other claims are equally absurd.