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

Well, I thought..

[CrazyDuke]

Maybe it is only a US policy, but I thought "We will sue you!" letters from the organization's lawyers was the standard reply.

Re:Well, I thought..

[Threni]

"Europe suck!
Rebut that, Europe."

Uh...is Europe a plural? Other than that, I find it hard to argue with such a reasoned, carefully crafted argument!

Re:Well, I thought..

[Zork the Almighty]

Really, the right to reply is no big deal. Check out the hate mail section onthis guy's site. It doesn't seem to affect him at all.

Re:Well, I thought..

[Seclusion]

A law like this seems too easy to abuse. Couldn't my reply be the LOC or something else just as huge and amounts to nothing?

Newspapers too?

[truthsearch]

Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe? If not it seems exceptionally inconsitant. I imagine a lot of people (companies) are worried about their image on the net and want to force web sites to allow public responses in the same place as the source. I thought the US is having bigger problems with free speech, but this sounds very bad.

Re:Newspapers too?

[salimma]

Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe?

Not too sure if it is enshrined in law, but newspapers do tend to allow their probe target the opportunity to reply in the letters page. And if the story is proven to be inaccurate the newspaper would tend to provide a public retraction.

How much is due to this 'right of reply' and how much is due to common-sense courtesy and libel suit avoidance, I do not know. Any Slashdotters work for a European newspaper?

Re:Newspapers too?

[Wudbaer]

Yes, it indeed is like that. If you feel that you have been misrepresented in e.g. a newspaper article
they have to print your counterstatement. Usually it is headed by a more or less boilerplate intro of: "The press laws require us to print this, this does not mean it is true, correct etc."

Re:Newspapers too?

[vrt3]

Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe?

IANAL so I'm not 100% sure about this, and I don't know the legal details, but I'm pretty sure it is a requirement for newspapers and magazines. The proposal just seems to be an extension to online publications.

Re:Newspapers too?

[DZign]

I'm not sure if it's really a requirement, but I guess so, sometimes you see in a newspaper a column 'right to answer' (literal translation). Usually it's posted between the letters sent in by readers.

In this usually is a letter written by someone about whom an article had been written, he gives his opinion on what he believes has been mis presented, or corrects facts.. (to which an editor of course can also answer....)

I don't know if it's bad for the internet to have this - guess not. Publishing on the internet is the same as elsewhere, you are responsible for what you write and the internet does not make it anonymous or allow everything to be said.

You shouldn't be able to post lies about someone/something. There's still free speech: you can say what you want, but mention it's your opinion. But if the owner of the product or the person you attack doesn't approve, you have to allow him to defend himself too, so readers can make up their mind and judge for themselves who/what they will believe. I guess I prefer this more than the USA in which you receive cease and decist letters and have to take everything offline or get sued..

Re:Newspapers too?

[Hrshgn]

>Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe?

I think it is. You can see such 'clarifications' quite often in news papers and magazines.

I also think that equalization between printed and online press is the main motivation behind this move.

> I thought the US is having bigger problems with free speech, but this sounds very bad.

Giving both sides the right to calrify their position is hardly impeding free speech. And there are not just 'journalist vs. big company' situations. Sometimes private individuals get attacked in the press. I really think that it is their right to respond to such accusations.

Hrshgn

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."

Re:Newspapers too?

[aspargillus]

Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe?

Yes. Actually any traditional media; paper, television or radio. So incuding publications on the net is actually necessary for consistency.

I thought the US is having bigger problems with free speech, but this sounds very bad.

I don't quite see why this is bad. You are responsible for the things you say, no matter by whay medium. You make a publication claming some bullshit about someone else: they can respond with the very same means to the very same audience.

Re:Newspapers too?

[arivanov]

Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe?

Yes.

And I think that adding this requirement to the internet media is a good thing (TM) as it decreases the number of cases that go to court and feed the lawyers.

Re:Newspapers too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Publishers of periodical publications have to print/broadcast counterstatements in the issue following the receipt of the counterstatement, with the same prominence as the original article. The counterstatement is limited to factual information. The publisher does not have to publish (subjective) opinion. The publisher can comment on the counterstatement, but is likewise limited to factual information.

Re:Newspapers too?

[peerogue]

> Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe?

Yes, it is.

That's the whole point: give Internet communication the same status as printed communication.

Re:Newspapers too?

[kris]

In Germany, yes.

For newspapers, for radio and televisision programmes as well. If you report on a person or company, that person or company has the right to insist on their POV being published in an appropriate form. This works fairly well, and has a very low to non-noticeable actual impact on the content or cost of newspapers or programmes.

And I think it is a good idea to apply this to non-printed media as well. If you read the text carefully, you'll see that linking is okay. This more or less automatically solves the authentication problem, keeps editing for space out of the way and does generally the right thing network-wise.

This is not bad at all. In fact, it forces a lot of people into a fair discussion with argument and counterargument, whereas there were only soapboxes and shouting before.

Kristian

Re:Newspapers too?

[Hittite Creosote]

There's a description of the requirement for corrections in various countries here.
In the UK, the right to reply is generally 'governed' by the Press Complaints Commission - note that this isn't actually a legal body, it's an independent body set up by the media in a desperate attempt to regulate themselves just enough to avoid the government doing it for them...

Re:Newspapers too?

[Anonymous Coward]

There certainly already is such a requirement for newpapers in some European countries. And guess what: It works out pretty well. Better than most of the "horrendous damages lawsuit against college students"-solution elsewhere.
(I wonder whether the original slashdot submitter actually has seen European ways of doing things or just has read something and found things unfamiliar and thus outrageous. But that, one wonders with a lot of /. stories about perceivedly ludicrous laws in Europe.)

Re:Newspapers too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the BBC, one of the least biased, most respected, independant(short of Sir Humphry Appleby's schemes) news sources on the planet.

The fact that it doesn't rely on Comercial funding is not the same as being a Government Broadcaster. Every person in the UK pays some money(except of course the Young Ones who spend their time hiding from the BBC despite being on it) to get a TV license, all this money goes to the BBC, other funds are aquired by merchandise from TV shows and publishing efforts as well as selling Content to other networks around the world.
The ABC in Australia is the same and its also respected to a high degree in South East Asia for being unbiased and informative, something your post will hopefully never achieve.

The idea that they are under the control of the British government is almost as insane as saying the United States media refuse to attack George Bush...wait a second.

Re:Newspapers too?

[Otter]

Well, this is a good example of how different societies can choose to define rights and liberties in different ways.

You can see where the Americans here are astonished at the prospect of laws "forcing " people into "a fair discussion", whereas Europeans would consider it an infringement of their rights to be denied a soapbox in any publication that mentions them.

Obviously I'm comfortable with the values of my own society, but it's important for everyone to realize that there are different visions of rights, and that there are different paths you can take without becoming North Korea or Libya.

Re:Newspapers too?

[macrom]

I think it has more to do with the media of a newspaper. There are op-ed columns and places designed for response from both targeted parties and the everyday citizen wishing to express an opinion. Blogs don't follow this same style and I don't think they were ever intended to do so. It's a way for a single person (usually) to voice their opinions on matters of interest. If a particular blog has a forum constructed for feedback, then that's how an offended party should respond.

Other media forms that don't require the publication of a party's response :

1. Television. Commericals bash competing products all the time yet aren't required to air a dissenting opinion. It's up to the other party to formulate and publish their own response.

2. Radio. Same as above. Even further, stations themselves (and the DJs) often trash-talk about the other stations in a broadcast market. There's nothing that says they have to give air time to the competition to respond to their heresay.

I think it's sad that lawmakers can't treat new media outlets as NEW, avoiding comparision to the old and attempting to impose laws based on unapplicable standards from a differing venue. Hopefully some key lobbyists will help right this ship and prevent it from setting a precedent that we all come to regret and loathe.

Re:Newspapers too?

[gaspyy]

I think it is so everywhere in Europe; it certainly is here in my country (Eastern Europe) - it is called "The right to reply".

The idea is that if a publication makes a statement (usually some accusations) regarding a company or a person, that person/company has the right to have a reply to that accusations being published.

Re:Newspapers too?

[TheCrazyFinn]

The BBC is funded by the public, and the public is forced to pay for their programming. ergo, it's gov't controlled, whether or not the government chooses to exercise this control is a moot point (And the government doesn't, or I'd doubt the Beeb's anti-american screeds of late would have made it to air, given Blair's heavy pro-american bias)

how is this any different from the CBC (Canadian Gov't Network), Voice of America, or TASS in the USSR?

Re:Newspapers too?

[stephenbooth]

Typically, here in the UK, articles criticising some person or company who is out of favor will appear on the front few pages probably in 16 point print with a 36 point or more headline and a photo to draw attention to it. After the PCC has ruled any correction will typically be printed on page 37 with a 10 point headline, body text 4-6 point, and not graphic between an advert for haemerroid cream and an article about someone who has grown an amusingly shaped vegetable (usually a turnip or swede).

Stephen

Re:Newspapers too?

[terrymr]

No the BBC's charter makes it very clear that it has editorial independence from the government. It is correct to say that it is publicly funded. The BBC has had no qualms in the past about taking up a position contrary to the government.

Re:Newspapers too?

[TheCrazyFinn]

But the government controls the purse strings. Ergo, should the government feel it necessary, it could control the beeb. Actually, under British law, the Government has some very interesting powers of censorship, it can quite effectively control ALL of the British Media, via your version of the Official Secrets Act, as the UK has only de facto Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, not De Jure. Of course, enforcing that in an egregarious application would be problematic, with the lack of a written constitution, the judiciary has somewhat more leeway to tell the government where to get off.\
\

Re:Newspapers too?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Typically, here in the UK, articles criticising some person or company ... appear on the front few pages probably in 16 point print with a 36 point or more headline and a photo to draw attention to it. After the PCC has ruled any correction will typically be printed on page 37 with a 10 point headline, body text 4-6 point ...

Although some people would like to change this, and rightly so.

Re:Newspapers too?

[Miksa]

You are correct.

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - U.S. Broadcasting Policy

Re:Newspapers too?

[Richthofen80]

"This is not bad at all. In fact, it forces a lot of people into a fair discussion with argument and counterargument, whereas there were only soapboxes and shouting before."

This would be all fine and dandy, except that it doesn't matter if you think its bad or good. all that matters is what the company thinks.

Forcing someone to write or support an idea in their publication that they don't agree with is a form of facism. The beauty of personal ownership is to editorialize, to say what you want to say, and to not say the ideas you don't agree with. Forcing companies to publish ideas that they don't want to publish seems like a gross abuse of individual liberties. It doesn't matter that its cheap. You're forcing them to spend money to print information contrary to what they believe.

If you want to speak an idea, you pay for it. Don't force those who may not agree with you to use their time, their money, their life to support your idea.

You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to free microphones.

Re:Newspapers too?

[Theaetetus]

I don't quite see why this is bad. You are responsible for the things you say, no matter by whay medium. You make a publication claming some bullshit about someone else: they can respond with the very same means to the very same audience

Sure, in theory... However, say you have a newspaper and publish an editorial blasting some company. Said company calls you up, cites this bill, and says that they insist that you publish their response.

No prob, you sez, send it on over.

And that afternoon, an encyclopedia-sized volume arrives consisting of the entire history of said company, some random blurbs, maybe a few recipies, the T-section of the phone book, etc. This is their 'response'. Go ahead and print it. Oh, and don't think you can get out of the law by shortening your circulation and only printing one issue. Nope, you have to print their entire response (no editing allowed!) to your regular subscriber base, and pay for all the materials, ink, and shipping used.

And you go bankrupt.

That's why this is bad - there are no provisions for length anywhere in this. As another example, say you do it only on your blog - and the company sends you a gigabyte-long response that you have to post... and then they proceed to slashdot your servers so that you're either DOS'd, or have to pay prohibitive bandwidth charges.

-T

Re:Newspapers too?

[Carnivorous Carrot]

I read a few years ago that in Germany, you couldn't even mention a competing product in your advertisement, at least by saying how and why yours is better.

Re:Newspapers too?

[mrmeval]

Not really, I slam them, they slam back, I slam them....

I keep doing it with more voluminous posts till they yeild.

It's most effective with companies that really have some dirty crap to hide.

Re:Newspapers too?

[Carnivorous Carrot]

For those in America who don't know, Europeans typically pay about the equivalent of a modern day 19" color TV per year per TV in their household for the right to have and watch that TV.

Quite a shocking idea, that you have to pay to watch broadcast TV.

Re:Newspapers too?

[peter]

As others have said, this isn't a problem on the web. They put their rebuttal on their server, you link to it. Unless they go out of their way to get a ton of people to visit your site (which would be stupid, because they're probably rather nobody saw your allegations in the first place), nothing they do is going to increase your bandwidth usage.

Re:Newspapers too?

[lommer]

between an advert for haemerroid cream and an article about someone who has grown an amusingly shaped vegetable (usually a turnip or swede).

Could you please post a link to a story about the person that grew an amusingly shaped swedish person? It sounds really interesting...

Re:Newspapers too?

[Theaetetus]

As others have said, this isn't a problem on the web. They put their rebuttal on their server, you link to it. Unless they go out of their way to get a ton of people to visit your site (which would be stupid, because they're probably rather nobody saw your allegations in the first place), nothing they do is going to increase your bandwidth usage.

Unfortunately, the law only says it's sufficient to provide a link if they put the rebuttal on their servers. However, if they send you the server, you have to put it on your server - the language of the proposed bill specifically states this.

-T

Re:Newspapers too?

[peter]

Hmm, that does suck. Any countries thinking about making a law like that should read the comments on this /. story, and fix problems like that. (people of Europe, email the appropriate government members.)

Re:Newspapers too?

[akadruid]

Europeans typically pay about the equivalent of a modern day 19" color TV per year per TV in their household for the right to have and watch that TV.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!
This post is completely incorrect, in almost every detail!
1. This applies only in the UK AFAIK, and certainly does not apply across Europe.
2. The license fee as payable for an entire household. In my house we have 5 televisions, and one license.
3. The fee covers the reception of public and commercial broadcast television. Merely owning a TV set does NOT make you liable for a license fee.
The one element of truth in this may be the price - we pay £116/year for a license. That may cover the cost of a cheap TV. However UK citizens in general do not feel that this is particularly bad value for money. While it may be expensive on a per-channel basis, the quality of the channels is very high, and there are many additional services provided by the BBC, such as the excellent bbc.co.uk, the UK's most visited website IIRC.
For anyone wanting to know more about the subject, try these sources of real facts:
TV Licensing
BBCi, The UK's #1 most visited website
and to balance the debate:
BBC Resistance - the campaign to abolish the TV License
and for a laugh:
19" Televisions for under £116

Re:Newspapers too?

[stephenbooth]

A swede is a vegetable. A Swede is a Swedish person. It's all in the context and capitalisation. Unfortunately these sorts of things tend to only make it into the paper edition (they're just filler) so there's no link. If you try Googl;ing on "amusingly shaped vegetable" then you may get lucky.

Stephen

Right to reply? Certanly.

[Unknown Poltroon]

They can write their reply on their check they send me to pay for my monthly web-hosting costs.

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[sirius_bbr]

Just a hyperlink to the reply suffices. So it won't influence your web-hosting costs.

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[ichimunki]

The draft does not indicate that the original on-line media source can just link to it. It does suggest that the reply needs to, at least, be linked from the same page as the original article or information. But still, it would appear that the on-line media is the one responsible for making the file containing the response available, either by incorporating it into the page in the first place, or by having a special location for such replies and linking to that.

IOW, your web-hosting costs could be affected because of the increased bandwidth used to host these replies.

Interesting to note that the first draft used the phrase "professional on-line media" but that "professional" was stricken in favor of "entity whose main activity [is providing on-line media]". So, for journalists and commentators like Declan McCullough, this would apply. For the every-so-often blogger, this may not apply. Furthermore, nothing in the draft requires you to notify the subjects of the article in order to solicit a reply or anything.

So obviously the rule is intended to keep BigMediaCo's web site from publishing a defamatory article on you or your small business and you not really having any way to respond except via lawsuit. In this sense, the law is hardly a danger to free speech. The question becomes: can I blog about what a skank my ex-gf was without providing equal space for her to complain about what a cheapskate I was on dates? :)

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[Theaetetus]

IOW, your web-hosting costs could be affected because of the increased bandwidth used to host these replies.

Could be really bad, too:

"Company A sucks."
Company A's reply, posted as mandated by law

"Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good. Company A is good...." etc., for gigabytes and gigabytes...

If they want to do this, they should add in a bit about response limited to the same length as the original.

-T

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[Synithium]

"Company A sucks.
Company A's Reply: We do not.

Cheers

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[Theaetetus]

"Company A sucks.
Company A's Reply: We do not.

Sorry, no - under the proposed law, you are not allowed to edit their response - so even if their response is in the form of a 100 MB .pdf file, you have to post that.

-T

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[ichimunki]

This isn't the proposed law though. This is just the directive which would essentially tell the countries involved what sort of law to draft. It would seem that the original right of response laws feature limits, otherwise you could hand a newspaper a bound volume to put in their next issue... similarly this directive suggests that more latitude should be given in that respect for online resources because it's not as likely to be burdensome, but we don't actually know at this time what the laws will say specifically. The on-line media will have some sort of ability to reject or appeal before they have to print the responses, I should think.

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[echucker]

Bzzt. As has been stated in numerous other responses, a hyperlink to the reply hosted on the respondent's site is sufficient.

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[ichimunki]

Bzzt! No it isn't. There is no mention of any requirement for the respondent to host the material. Links are mentioned in a context such that the reply does not need to be on the same page as the original information. That is, the reply could be hosted in an area of the site specifically created for such replies and then be linked from the article. In fact, if I were publishing information about some person or company that wanted to respond, why would I want to point my readers to their site?

Re:Right to reply? Certanly.

[Theaetetus]

Bzzt. As has been stated in numerous other responses, a hyperlink to the reply hosted on the respondent's site is sufficient.

Bzzzt, yourself. As stated in the article, a hyperlink to the reply hosted on the respondent's site is sufficient only if the respondent has posted such a reply on their site

If said respondent instead mails you the response, you are obligated to post it on your site, at your bandwidth cost. The proposed law is quite clear on this - hyperlinks are only sufficient if the material exists elsewhere. Otherwise, you have to put it up.

-T

Slashdot the web?

[danormsby]

So if the whole web works like slashdot we're covered? People can comment on any article if it refers to them or not.

Re:Slashdot the web?

[Guppy06]

When was the last time they published a submission by Bill Gates?

Two questions.

[TrollBridge]

1. How will they verify that the person who is replying is in fact the person they are criticizing.

2. If the answer to 1 is "they won't", does this mean that any EU site will be a juicy target for trolls impersonating the subject of criticism? Sure sounds like an invitation for some nasty abuses to me!

Re:Two questions.

[BrokenHalo]

These might be sticky questions, but the total lack of regulation on the internet has led to a situation where anybody can say anything about anybody with no redress. It's only a matter of time until the community won't be able to take this any more. I'm not saying the EU measures are good per se since I haven't seen the details, but it's been a long time coming.

Re:Two questions.

[banzai51]

but the total lack of regulation on the internet has led to a situation where anybody can say anything about anybody with no redress. This is fine. This is good. Americans grasp it, Euros don't.

Re:Two questions.

[stephenbooth]

That's rather a generalisation, isn't it? It would appear that not all Americans do grasp it. I assure you that many Europeans are fully aware of the level of freedom of speech on the internet.

Also, doesn't freedom of speech guarentee freedom not to listen. Kinda "You can say what you want but you can't stop me from walking away or sticking my fingers in my ears and going 'La la la. I can't hear you!'" or something like that. Wouldn't requiring someone to publish a rebuttal of somethign they said imply that they must 'hear' it?

Wandering off at a slight tangent, if you are made to publish a rebuttal then surely you can also rebutt that rebuttal? A sufficiently competant commentator could probably use any reply supplied to further denigrate the person they had originally criticised. By ripping apart the reply, exposing any falsehoods, dissembling or double-speak they could rip that person to shreds.

Stephen

Re:Two questions.

[banzai51]

You're missing the point. The point is that this law needlessly burdens the individual's speach. Europeans tend to take the view that you can't just say whatever you want because there are consequences. Americans take the view that you can say whatever you please and the government can do jack about it. This law will stop Europeans from saying what is on their minds because some business or government entitiy can take legal action against the individual. Right or wrong won't matter. What matters it that some other entity with vast resources will challenge you and your limited funds in a court of law. You can be right and still lose.

Re:Two questions.

[stephenbooth]

Or another way to look at it is that Europeans realize that you must be prepared to stand by what you say and do, be prepared to face any consequences. You seem to be saying that Americans believe that you do not have to face the consequenes of your speech and actions.

As a principle I think that the right to reply is a good thing, I believe that it was probably part of what the authors of the US constitution had in mind (consciously or subconsciously) when they created the first ammendment. Freedom of speech much be universal else it is meaningless. This law, however, I believe is very poorly framed and is open to abuse.

The point is that with the freedom to say what you want comes the responsibility to only say what you are prepared to stand by and defend. Laws already exist that cover libel/slander, that's nothing to do with this law. In principle this law is giving those who feel that they were unfairly criticised a forum to put their arguement in a place where those who read the initial criticism are likely to see it. It neither extends nor constrains their right to sue for libel or slander. The principle is a good one, the law is a bad one.

Stephen

Jurisdictional problems

[salimma]

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?

A SCO rep could just reply on the journal entry, but how does the authentication work? Could I require him to PGP-sign his message? Or would it be irrelevant because Slashdot is not based in Europe?

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:Jurisdictional problems

[enigma971]

This sounds like a rule that will be too difficult to enforce, unless they set up very specific guidelines. You're right, how do you determine that a reply is from a legitimate representative of the company. Can any employee respond? There are too many "if"s here. Hopefully the authentication thing will get in the way of it's being enforced. "I'm sorry I didn't post the company's reply, but I didn't know if it was legitimate or not."

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[mdielmann]

It would be irrelevant because no real companies take /. seriously, and so would not reply...

*/joke*

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[dh003i]

To actually force you to post their rebuttal they almost certainly need some kind of ruling by a judge.

Two other things they need:

(1) For him to actually live in Europe, so that they have jurisdiction over him.

(2) A substantial punishment if he doesn't public the response. If there is no punishment for not publishing the response, why would he?

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Surak]

From the article:

Third, the council's plan is unenforceable. Even today, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom have not enacted a right of reply for traditional media, and it's a good bet that they won't for the Internet, either. A Euroblogger who wished to cloak his identity could set up an account in one of those countries--or in the United States.

So I'd say you would probably have no problems with your Slashdot journal, since Slashdot is psuedonymous. But IANAL, and I'm also not entirely familiar with European laws except for where they match U.S. law (U.S. law is, after all, based on English common law.)

If you're in the U.K., then you might not have a problem at all. THe article says above that the U.K. doesn't even have right of reply for traditional media.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Reziac]

Another thought along similar lines: what if someone sends you a rebuttal that is an outright flame, which by this law you're forced to print -- and it's so embarrassing once seen in public that the flame's author wants you to remove it -- do you have to comply? can they sue you if you don't?

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[sebi]

Another thought along similar lines: what if someone sends you a rebuttal that is an outright flame, which by this law you're forced to print -- and it's so embarrassing once seen in public that the flame's author wants you to remove it -- do you have to comply? can they sue you if you don't?

I doubt it. Unsaying something is very hard. Especially if you don't control the medium in which you said it. If you are stupid enough to respond in a way that might make you look even worse than the original accusation, than that's your fault. This legislation is not supposed to be destructive. It is not censorship, because it is not about removing existing content. It is about adding a different point of view. No one can force me to correct somebody else's blunder.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Reziac]

But under this law, you'd be forced to print someone else's blunder. As someone else points out, what if that in turn causes a third party to claim that THEY need a rebuttal printed too? Where does it end??

Stupid flamewars among kiddies aside (man, would this law make THAT a mess), this could kill off every sort of user-opinion forum out there.

What if every time someone here posted a negative remark about M$, either in a comment or a journal, Slashdot was forced to post M$'s rebuttal? And then whoever they FUD'd gets to post a rebuttal, and so on...

Wouldn't be long before user forums and blogs either go underground, collaspe under the sheer weight, or become bland useless places where nothing controversial is ever discussed.

Perhaps including even this law.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[sebi]

But under this law, you'd be forced to print someone else's blunder. As someone else points out, what if that in turn causes a third party to claim that THEY need a rebuttal printed too? Where does it end??

It ended with you publishing whatever you were forced to. The third party has no claim on you but rather on the second party. If the second party forced you to publish something slandering the third party then this third party can go after the second. If they can convince someone to right the perceived wrong inflicted upon them by the second party then this second party must figure out how to get the next rebuttal to the intended place. And at this point we are talking about compensation. The second party will have to pay you for the space and bandwidth to put up the foreign content. This alone should assure that the majority of people will be careful what they write in their original response (meaning that the thing is seen by a lawyer before being sent off), and that your average flamer will not get very far.

Wouldn't be long before user forums and blogs either go underground, collaspe under the sheer weight, or become bland useless places where nothing controversial is ever discussed. (emphasis added)

One might argue that this has already happened.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[rzbx]

There is no way they would go after all these blogs. Can you imagine an entire department within a company dedicated to searching the net for commants and sending out replies? I can, except I also can't imagine most companies doing any such thing. This would be Orwellian and it would more than likely hurt the company. If the ideas it presents are bad ones and so many people disagree that they post blogs about it and the company counters, then it brings that idea more attention. Focus is something companies do not want when it comes to ideas that the public wouldn't be to happy about. Ideas constantly being challenged is a good thing. People will think twice about posting incorrect statements. Flame wars are just that. Intellectuals don't argue like most do online. There is a more scientific approach to evaluating ideas. Anyway, my point is, this will not cause blogs to go underground or collapse. For companies to go out of their way to post responses to all those blogs out there is impractical.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Fascist Christ]

"...what if that in turn causes a third party to claim that THEY need a rebuttal printed too? Where does it end??"

Defend with a shield, not with a sword. If your rebuttal is such that it offends someone, then you would be introducing a new subject and not presenting opposing evidence. Therefore, a flame is not a rebuttal.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[dcmeserve]

What if every time someone here posted a negative remark about M$, either in a comment or a journal, Slashdot was forced to post M$'s rebuttal?

This is already provided for, if you think about it: slashdot has the policy of accepting/archiving every comment that anyone wants to post (even if it gets modded down, it's still there). If MS wanted to rebut any slashdot comments, they would merely need to post a reply. Hell, if it was convincing that it was indeed from MS, it'd be modded +5 real quick.

If they decided to be dicks about it and have their lawyers send a "you must include this rebuttal or we'll sue your ass" letter, the reply would be simple: "post it yourself"!

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[jmping]

It's important to note that the right to rebut does not imply that someone will rebut. People generally only use rights of rebuttal when they feel wrongly or inappropriately portrayed by the media source / person they are responding to. I would actually argue that the European system is much better than ours because it discourages unjustified and wrongful criticism by allowing people to respond in the first place. If Fox News, for instance, criticized you continuously, an American citizen would have to go to court and prove that the criticism is totally and completely unjustified. After that, another media source will need to report on the issue for anyone to know the truth. A right to rebut means that that same media source must acknowledge my version of events as well even if they don't agree with it. This gives individuals more power and helps diversify the media messages. It also means that the news source knows that I can respond and will be less likely to attack me without justification. Though my argument is more focused on the already existant media sources, Blogs probaby could be helped by a right of reply. I have been criticized on a journal for something it turns out that I didn't do. The ability to post a comment allowed me to explain that and prevent a large number of flamers about the posting, made in my name but not of my origin. If someone wants to respond, they always can. I might be crazy, but think this is actually a positive thing.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

As someone else points out, what if that in turn causes a third party to claim that THEY need a rebuttal printed too? Where does it end??

Fortunately for us, they've already thought of that. The whole Right of Reply system is based on the method of debate in the Parliament. And the basic rule is that you can't Right of Reply a Right of Reply. Thus, if:

1) I slam Microsoft on my webpage, and
2) Microsoft demands right of reply, with which I comply, and
3) Microsoft says nasty things about me or some other entity in that right of reply, then
-------
4) None of those entities can claim a right of reply to that statement, since it is already a right of reply.

Hope that clarifies.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[salimma]

I'm also not entirely familiar with European laws except for where they match U.S. law

That would be the UK and Ireland - afaik most countries in the Continent derive their codes of law from the Napoleonic Code, and before that, the Justinian Codex.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[mattis_f]

Well, simple reply to this - it's been in effect for quite a few years in newspapers in Europe, and believe it or not, but it works. Sometimes a debate takes off between two parties (sort of like what you describes) but the newspapers generally steps in and stops the discussion when it's not going further. Usually that happens after one or sometimes two replies. I've lived both in Europe and in the states, and I have to say that the debates in the newspapers in europe are a whole lot better (and not at all flamewars) than those I find in american papers.

And about M$ - do you really think they would have time to browse all weblogs? And would you prefer getting sued instead of posting a link to their reply for a week or so?

Well, just my two cents.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Reziac]

I agree it'd be silly and impractical to go after blogs, but what about one that becomes fairly high-profile? What about review sites?

Details aside, the real problem is that this makes it easy harrass and perhaps silence gadflies, even when the gadflies are doing the world a service.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Reziac]

[can of worms] If it were an article or book review, that would probably not be covered by M$ coming along and posting a comment. A court might well see it that if you post an article, you have to post a rebuttal in equal prominence; ie. it couldn't be relegated to posting a mere comment that isn't guaranteed equal visibility. [/can of worms]

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Reziac]

There are plenty of people who feel that ALL criticism is wrongfully made, regardless of how well-justified it is. And imagine if governments got into the act.

As to being able to defend yourself -- if someone posted in your name, it follows that anyone can already post, so why make new laws about it?

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Reziac]

Somewhat, yeah -- tho let's say you're anti-[politically-correct-position]. Someone who is pro-[politically-correct-position] could conceivably force you to carry *their* opinion (as a rebuttal) on your webpage. The problem that arises is that casual visitors (who like most folk don't carefully read every word as they skim for content) may well take the Pro guy's position as being YOUR position. Which could be deleterious to YOUR reputation.

The whole thing smells too much like "someone in power got pissed because someone said bad things about him, and he's gonna make them pay". And I do think that is primarily how it will be used, too.

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

Correct -- which is why Right of Reply doesn't work as well in print as it does in debate.

=)

Re:Jurisdictional problems

[Reziac]

Another difference being that classical debates typically have a realtime moderator! Who's gonna moderate all these online to-and-fro's?

Hmm.. I still have four mod points that I've gotta find a use for today... [g]

Wow...

[TopShelf]

This is a truly idiotic endeavor. While it may be one thing to require professional media outlets to provide such a forum (which they generally do out of good journalistic practice), it is another thing entirely to require it of any and all online content. While this is a long way from becoming law, it's distressing that such a proposal has made it this far...

Re:Wow...

[peerogue]

Well, call it idiotic if you want, but that's actually a good thing. You should be held liable for your sayings, and if you offend someone, you have at least to give that someone the right to defend himself.

It's only because that someone has that right that *you* have the right to express your opinion. In a reponsible manner. Otherwise, it's the traditional fight where the stronger (the one with access to more media, here) that will always win.

I see that as being really fair. If you don't see it that way, then I'll call you @#$%!@ and you will have ability to defend against that blatent accusation. :-)

Re:Wow...

[TopShelf]

The offended party already has every right to defend himself - that's never been a problem. But if I post something that offends someone, why should I have to provide the forum for their response? That is idiotic...

What, for instance, would that do to a site like /.? Does /. become liable to provide response forums to any parties offended in any comments from any poster, including Anonymous Cowards??? What a nightmare.

Re:Wow...

[Chatterton]

While it may be one thing to require professional media outlets to provide such a forum (which they generally do out of good journalistic practice), it is another thing entirely to require it of any and all online content

Well, In France for what I know this right to respond is in the law. It is not just a good journalistic practice. And fortunatly, because from time to time we saw a title (by court ruling...) on a response on an article and this because the newspaper doesn't have let this response being printed in the first place. Don't think that everybody is nice and beautiful. Things can be futile, but not all. And let an open door to responses is not futile.

Re:Wow...

[Unordained]

uhm, ... don't they already -anyway-? seems anonymous cowards can normally post replies to just about anything (so long as it's not archived) ... so, for free, they can post their replies themselves, exactly where appropriate (as a reply to the offending post) ... which is actually ideal. and /. does the 'slash-back' thing where, often, they actually do link to rebuttals. got a problem with that?

Re:Wow...

[TopShelf]

I don't have a problem at all with them doing that, but of course even the steps you've outlined above don't address one key point of this proposal: the verification that the reply actually came from the offended party.

In short, I don't mind if sites want to do this - it is good journalistic practice. But to mandate that all sites (professional or individual) conform to these guidelines is absurd.

Re:Wow...

[Tablizer]

I can imagine cases where somebody posts a critique of somebody, and then just leave it there. Later on the person of the critique wants to reply by the author is not available for contact. The ISP may be forced to edit content. This will especially be true of blogs.

It is an excessive burden on ISP's and blog operators.

The US has stupid patent and visa laws, and Europe has stupid everything else.

Re:Wow...

[peerogue]

No, as long as you are anonymous, you cannot claim your right of reply.

But yes, I think if you say something bad about company XYZ, say, then it is fair that said company be offered the space to react to those accusations.

Note that they already have to right to go to the police and attack you on defamation. In Europe at least, I don't know in the USA.

In Europe, I've seen the "right of reply" used on many occasions in magazines. Most of the time, it was a company reacting to some false statements that had been made by journalists, and they claimed their right to correct that bad impression.

This is so natural a reaction to me that I don't understand all this fuss about that proposal to move that to the Internet publishing space.

Re:Wow...

[luisdom]

it is another thing entirely to require it of any and all online content
Why?
Because it would bother the blogger to put the other's POV? Frankly, if you hold the right to say whatever you want about me for everyone to see, I quite like the idea of having the right to reply... It makes the publisher (even the kiddies) to make themselves more responsible for what they write. Better than having to deal with a lawyer...

Re:Wow...

[rzbx]

It really isn't "another thing entirely to require it of any and all online content". Whether it be professional or not, allowing the other side to reply is important when it comes to free speech. I am replying right now to your post. Now imagine if I couldn't. People would not see my side, only yours. Everything they know about the subject would be what they already know and what you posted. I'm surprised your marked as insightful. There is no insight in your comment. You simply state that this is a bad proposal for all online content with absolutely no basis for your argument. Why is it bad? What is so "idiotic" about this "endeavor"?
Anyway, this pertains to any person or organization that is criticized, nothing more. What if someone from NY Times criticized you? I think you would find this law just. Without this law, they could criticize you and all you could do is go somewhere else where you would be reaching a different audience. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, then please let me know why. Don't just claim this is "ideotic". Also, for those marking posts like this insightful, I criticize you for being uninsightful.

Re:Wow...

[junkgrep]

You should be held liable for your sayings, and if you offend someone, you have at least to give that someone the right to defend himself.

This is so profoundly aliberal and totalitarian that it's scary. Words are not violence. There is no valid justification for a right to not be offended. And as soon as you declare such a right, you can bet that people will have prime motives for getting offended at everything they can.

Me speaking my mind imposes nothing on anyone else. No one has to listen to me, no matter what forum I use. No one has to care. So how can it impose an obligation on me to put any effort at all into all the people that want to respond to my criticisms of them?

If you don't see it that way, then I'll call you @#$%!@ and you will have ability to defend against that blatent accusation. :-)

So what? First of all, no one listens to you. Second of all, if someone did, I'd respond as appropriate. And if no one listens to me, that's too bad for me... but I'll probably live through it.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It is an excessive burden on ISP's and blog operators.

It is no more excessive than taking down a site violating an AUP, or any other maintenance ISPs do plenty of times every day. You are explicitly allowed just to link to a response, so a standard format "A response to this information is available (link) here" message should suffice.

Re:Wow...

[rzbx]

Is that realistic? Then your argument is flawed. I dare you to write 500mb worth of text on any subject within a reasonable length of time.
Why post as an AC on such a comment anyway? Is it because you know it is unrealistic?

Re:Wow...

[Ataru]

The police would normally send you away with "That would be a civil matter, Sir".

Re:Wow...

[Ataru]

If no-one listens to you, you're wasting your breath. You might as well just shut up.
Now suppose people said to you, "OK we will listen to you, but here are the rules..."
If you agree to the rules (in this case, that if you harsh someone up unfairly, they have comeback) then the people listen to you. Otherwise, it's back to "la la la can't hear you".
"No one has to listen to me"... Damn straight. And if as a group we decide that we don't want to listen to people who don't play by the rules, we can effectively silence you. I mean you still have the right to say things, and you still have the right to type them on your keyboard, but your computer won't be connected to our internet.
You live in a society. You do not have total freedom. You will never have total freedom. Perhaps if you went to live on the moon.

Re:Wow...

[junkgrep]

I mean you still have the right to say things, and you still have the right to type them on your keyboard, but your computer won't be connected to our internet.

So, what's the problem? In this scenario, it's your internet. I don't have a right to type on it. I didn't pay for it.

You live in a society. You do not have total freedom. You will never have total freedom. Perhaps if you went to live on the moon.

I'm sorry, but "I'M LAZY: YOU DO IT!" is not a valid reason to restrict people's freedom of speech. Restrictions are supposed to make sense, not be some morons idea of just deserts.

Re:Wow...

[Ataru]

I'm sorry too, I just can't see what your replies have to do with what I said.
Anyway, I still don't see why people are going on about freedom of speech being restricted here. Where? How? You know, if I were threatened with a beating for speaking my mind, I would consider that a restriction. But oh, shock horror, I have to deal with someone actually responding to my argument. Oh the terror of it. <smacks forehead>

Re:Wow...

[Tablizer]

But ISP's will normally just shut down your account if there is a legal issue. Now they would have to dig thru and edit someone else's spahgetti HMTL. Messier for generated content from a database or whatever because they have to figure out the code.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But ISP's will normally just shut down your account if there is a legal issue. Now they would have to dig thru and edit someone else's spahgetti HMTL. Messier for generated content from a database or whatever because they have to figure out the code.

You just stick in the AUP that anyone must put up a legally required response and terminate any account that doesn't. How many databases are active on the Internet, with a paid up ISP subscription, but nobody maintaining them?

This is only going to be an issue for ISPs if the original content author is not available to add the response themselves, which is basically only going to happen on free hosting sites.

This simply is not a real problem with the proposal. It would be likely to occur in such a small number of cases that even a local ISP would be able to deal with it.

Re:Wow...

[Alsee]

Because it is a burden for an individual to deal with it. Ordinarily that law applies to newspapers and other big media. The internet is more like a big public corkboard were anyone can tack up a note. It's a lot closer to individual verbal speech than a newspaper is. The law was designed to redress an imbalance in power between newspapers and individuals. If you put write on one of those free blogs, or get a free webpage, it is a non-trivial burden for you to comply. And I already have the ability to do the same.

Hell, I put up one of those free pages lunarpages.com. I certainly would have considered it a burden to provide a means of contact me, much less to actually handle any contacts and verify the source and to post the response to the free webboard. I'm one person, not a newspaper with a staff. I don't keep businesshours dedicated to the site. As a matter of fact I almost completely forgot about/ignored its existance. If you try to conttact me I could be away on vacation, or in the hospital, or maybe I dropped dead. Anyone is already free to put up their on page at lunarpages.com.

-

Re:Wow...

[Alsee]

Because it would bother the blogger to put the other's POV?

A blogger is now a newspaper with a large fulltime staff. And as you mention, the 'publisher' could be a 'kiddie' in elementry school blogging about her Barbie dolls.

I quite like the idea of having the right to reply

You've already got it. Write your own blog, they're free you know.

-

Re:Wow...

[Alsee]

I dare you to write 500mb worth of text on any subject within a reasonable length of time.

Actually there are programs that can do this. You just enter some details on the subjectmatter and it will pour out as much random yet semi-coherent and semi-relevant text as you like. The quality just depends on the program and on how much relevant info you input. A really smart program could even hit the internet for more input / better output. I'm not aware of any that currently do that though.

The real point is that this isn't like a newspaper with dozens or a hundred full time staff where they are effectively the only ones with the power to speak. You're most likely looking at an individual who is speaking - perhaps even a little girl blogging about her Barbie dolls. On the internet you aready have the ability to write whatever you want to a global audience.

Regulations that are reasonable on corporate speech can easily become a burden and stiffle speech if you apply them to individuals.

-

Re:Wow...

[Ataru]

So you would prefer to have the injured party send you a cease and desist letter, and end up removing your opinions from the site? Either way it's a burden, but I don't agree that it's non-trivial. If it was so hard then no-one would write blogs.
How is it a burden to provide a means of contact? What's wrong with an email address?
The need to authenticate the source is the one difficult bit, but it could be done with a trusted third party.
And if you're dead, you hardly have any more obligations under the law!

Re:Wow...

[Alsee]

So you would prefer to have the injured party send you a cease and desist letter, and end up removing your opinions from the site?

I'm assuming you're reffering to libel? There's a far higher standard for that. For another thing there is absolutely no "truth defense" here.

it's a burden, but I don't agree that it's non-trivial.

For all you know the author is a 10 year old girl in elementry school. She now has a legal ogligation to check an E-mail account every day and wade through tons of spam? Or perhaps she should post her home address on the internet? She has a legal obligation to provide Mattel Incorporated the means to respond to her blog about Barbie Dolls? Mattel is perfectly capable of putting up their own blog about Barbie Dolls.

What's wrong with an email address?

You know how often I check my E-mail? Almost never. Are you going to put me in jail for that?

Newspapers have a full time staff and legal department to handle this sort of stuff. This sort of law was originally designed to ensure individuals have the same right to speak as the powerful media corporations do. The burden was on the corporations and it was the people without a voice that benefited. But on the internet you are going to burden some individual blogger so that some corporation can have a voice? On the internet everyone is already capable of speaking. There's no need here to burden one speaker in order for another to have a global voice.

-

Re:Wow...

[AndrewHowe]

Sigh... Not unless your ten year old girl decides to start running off at the mouth and spreading lies about Mattel. And anyway she's a minor so it's irrelevant.

Re:Wow...

[Alsee]

spreading lies about Mattel

Unless I'm mistaken this law would apply even if what she wrote is 100% truth. The law gets triggered the instant Mattel decides they want a right to reply, reguardless of what was said.

-

Re:Wow...

[junkgrep]

I'm sorry too, I just can't see what your replies have to do with what I said.

That's a nice, easy way to weasel out of it for you I guess.

Anyway, I still don't see why people are going on about freedom of speech being restricted here. Where? How? You know, if I were threatened with a beating for speaking my mind, I would consider that a restriction. But oh, shock horror, I have to deal with someone actually responding to my argument.

This isn't about people responding to an argument: they can ALREADY do that. This is about placing obligations on me to do all sorts of time consuming, expensive stuff just because I spoke.

Isnt this the Slashdot way?

[peripatetic_bum]

Of course this could be a good thing or a very bad thing.

At least the law doesnt say you have to reply to your critics.

At least you only have to hyperlink to them.

Of course, what could happen is that we might see a floweing of civil discussion or we might end up back in the stone age if slashdot flamage starts ending up in mom and pop's daily newspaper reading and everyone launches nukes for retaliation

ack wish I could edit my last post

[BoneFlower]

For weblogs, that is simple. Use a system that allows user comments.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[bmongar]

So much for freedom of speech

You can still say what you want, you just have to allow the entity you are talking about a chance to reply. This has been 'good practice' in any real journalism for a while. You often see in news stories companyxxx was contacted but refused to reply or gave no comment or something.

No freedom of speach issues here.

Confused

[m00nun1t]

What I've never understood about laws like this is the location of the person vs. the location of the server.

Let's say I'm in Europe and my server is in the USA (pretty common I would guess). Whose laws am I subject to? And let's say I'm subject to European laws. They may be able to arrest me, but I would assume they have no legal right to force the ISP to remove my content.

Have there been any precedents around this sort of thing? And what country combination were those precedents?

Kazaa seems to be depending on this model - clients in the USA (and everywhere else, but USA is where the legal action is around Kazaa), staff in Australia, company & servers in Vanuatu. Maybe they are taking advantage of the confusion?

Re:Confused

[BiteMeFanboy]

That's because you have national governments, which are based on geographical boundaries, believing that they have the right to determine what goes on outside their border. I've got new for them, they don't. Case fucking closed.

Re:Confused

[Seahawk]

Its nothing short of American FUD I'm afraid - The council of Europe cannot make any laws in member states at all, and I find it hard to believe that any of the countries will make a law of this...

But the amrican media strikes once again with an absolutely silly story!

(Sorry sensible americans - This is in no way an attempt to troll - but I just feel a bit aggrevated when american media starts to write about silly laws in europe with your current amount of lawyers :))

Re:Confused

[Chatterton]

I don't think this law is stupid. This law extend what we already have for printed press and newspaper. The right to respond to an article we can find not true or diffaming in the same newspaper. Fortunatly in France it is in the law, because some newspaper doesn't let the response, and we can get a court ruling to get this reponse printed.

Re:Confused

[sebmol]

I find it hard to believe that any of the countries will make a law of this...

I would actually have to disagree. Most European countries already have such laws that cover traditional media (e.g. newspaper have to print counter-statements by the people involved in the story). This is merely an extension to the online world.

Re:Confused

[OAB]

Would you please tell that to George Bush?

Re:Confused

[zsau]

Have there been any precedents around this sort of thing? And what country combination were those precedents?

Australia (Victoria) + US.

An Australian was defamed (according to Aussie laws) by an American corporation. The American laws didn't agree. So he went to a Victorian court and won the right to be able to sue, even though it was an American company and the servers were in America.

This is an article about it, but there was another one this year. Or at least, 2001 seems much too long ago to have been it.

Re:Confused

[Seahawk]

I am perfectly aware that most european countries have such a law for offline media, but the big difference(imho) is that it is pretty easy to make your OWN reply on the internet - but it is quiet a bit harder to get a reply in the newspaper(Most danish newspapers dont need a law to let people defend themselves - they would gladly give the space needed i believe).

Besides it would put too big an administrative workload on the "little" man - something I have a hard time believeing would happen(in denmark atleast)

Re:Confused

[hpulley]

While they cannot force your ISP to remove the content for you if the law in that country does not allow them to do so, they can force you to remove the content from your own website as a court order. If you refuse to obey the court order, you can be held in contempt of court and jailed until such time as you agree to the order.

Anyone else read _Trouble_and_Her_Friends_ by Melissa Scott? Her novel predates the DCMA but coveres some of the same ideas coincidentally, and some of the ideas in this latest european action as well.

Re:Confused

[Shalda]

The answer is both. If your server is located in the USA, and you are the owner/responsible party of that server, you are liable for anything on that server. If you live in Europe, every act you commit is subject to the laws of whatever country you happen to be in. Furthermore, if you're visiting Germany, but are a citizen of the UK, you can get nailed for violating either of their laws while in Germany.

The golden rule of jurisdiction is that a court will take any excuse to exert it's soverignty over you. Really, the only worthwhile precedents for this sort of thing are the rare cases where a court has declined jurisdiction. There was one where a Texas student accused of distributing De-CSS was not subject to a California court because he, and his server were both located in Texas. The only connection to California was the DVD-CCA, and the court suggested it would be more appropriate to sue him in Texas.

Kazaa is doing its best at venue dodging, but most of what they have going for them is that they don't have a central directory and have little control over how their technology is used. (IE, they're no more responsible than makers of CDR media, or VCRs.)

Re:Confused

[FeloniousPunk]

Its nothing short of American FUD I'm afraid - The council of Europe cannot make any laws in member states at all, and I find it hard to believe that any of the countries will make a law of this...
But the amrican media strikes once again with an absolutely silly story!
(Sorry sensible americans - This is in no way an attempt to troll - but I just feel a bit aggrevated when american media starts to write about silly laws in europe with your current amount of lawyers :))
Yeah, and we had assurances from Belgium that we had nothing to worry about when their parliament passed their ridiculous universal prosecution law. And what's it been used to do since? To file harrassing court proceedings against US government officials. I'm afraid that there's little reason to trust the Europeans not to try to extend this outside of their own jurisdiction.

Re:Confused

[CausticWindow]

You're completely right. I've even heard euros talking about launching a an attack to preempt the attack the US promised if the international court ever dared to touch their boys.

Re:Confused

[Nexus Seven]

What are you talking about?

Belgium has handed you an excuse to never go there, and you're complaining? What's up with that?

Re:Confused

[someone247356]

Actually, this proposed law is very stupid.

The problem most people who don't think that this is a very bad law is that they keep thinking of the internet as a newspaper/television|radio station. While that is a good analogy for a good portion of it, they aren't identical.

To see just how silly it is, apply it to leafleting instead of printing a newspaper. If I don't like company X, I print a couple of thousand leaflets that state my reasons I believe that people shouldn't do business with company X. Since company X doesn't like what I have to say, and since there is this "right to reply", a representative publishes a one page rebuttal to my leaflet and sends it to me. Should I have to print out another thousand copies and try to redistribute it to all of the places where I handed out my original leaflet?

How about a diary? What if I keep a diary of my comings and goings, and leave a copy in my front yard, so that anyone interested can come by and read what I have written. Yesterday I see you peeing in an ally near the public library. I write it up, and add a comment that I think you are a very uncouth fellow for urinating in public. Does your "right of reply" mean that I have to include a page in my diary containing your rebuttal, of how you were actually out of town that day, and anyway you really, really had to go?

I don't know about you, but that seems very silly to me. Luckily here in the United States the courts have ruled that the "Freedom of Speech" includes the right NOT to speak. In other words, the First Amendment protects us from compelled speech. Recently, the courts have ruled that industries like mushroom growers, didn't have to fund generic government mushroom ads. The "right to reply" would be just that, compelled speech. If you don't like what I have written, then by all means take an ad out in the paper, start a blog, plaster a billboard with your message. Just don't expect me to give you a forum to do that in.

If I have libeled you, take me to court. If I have written my honest opinion, or illuminated facts you had rather I didn't, too bad. People, have been developing remarkably thin skins in recent years. You don't like what people have to say about you, too bad, deal with it.

There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended. At least not in the United States, yet. I can't say how things are over there in Europe.

Things like this "right of reply" only burdens the right of those without means to speak and be heard. Newspapers, television stations, companies, well heeled individuals, can all afford to implement things like a "right of reply". It seems these Europeans are scared to death of the common man getting his voice heard by more than the few people around him. When mass communication is limited to the few, the government/corporations have a much easier time controlling what gets said, when, and by whom. The "official" version of events doesn't have any competition with any other version, or the truth.

Democracy is messy, it has to be to work. Otherwise you end up with a police state, where the only message that's allowed to be written, or heard, is the "correct" message. Take a look at the media in Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Cuba. Does Europe want to join that illustrious list?

Just look at the "official" news sources in the United States during the last Gulf War. It was very hard to hear anything negative about our actions. No bodies, no bloodshed, clean sanitized, made for television. Compare that with the coverage out of Vietnam during that war. When footage was broadcast of Saddam mistreating U.S. POW's, people had a fit.
(/sarcasm_on)How dare they broadcast that! (/sarcasm_off)

The caliphony of voices that the internet has enabled is healthy for society. Annoying, petty, down right aggravating at times, yes, but ultimately needed. Applying this "right of reply" to every individual who wants to be heard is nothing more than a thinly disguised bond for speakin

Re:Confused

[mattis_f]

I can't resist this ... if you are anywhere, you are subject to US laws, no matter what country you are from or anything. Look at Dimitri! And to be honest, if there's any law I am scared off, it's US law...

Re:America seems really terrible...

[salimma]

America tends towards protection of free speech; Europe tends towards protection of privacy.

Though this might be taking it a bit too far though. I don't like the authentication requirement. Surely it's up to the other person to prove he is who he claims to be before I should post his reply?

Given reasonable limits, of course. I should not be allowed to interrogate him and use regression hypnosis, etc. to make sure he's not a mole :)

Not Weblogs

[RazzleFrog]

According to the draft:

"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 don't think that many weblog scould be considered professional or influencing of public opinion.

Re:Not Weblogs

[RazzleFrog]

Ignore my comment. I found the edited latest version.

A BLOG !

[da5idnetlimit.com]

So, if you have an open blog; ppl can register and answer whatever they want.

"The reply should be made publicly available in a prominent place for a period of time (that) is at least equal to the period of time during which the contested information was publicly available, but, in any case, no less than for 24 hours." "

--Prominent... Like close to the offending comment, offering it the same exposure ?

â Hyperlinking to a reply is acceptable. "It may be considered sufficient to publish (the reply) or make available a link to it" from the spot of the original mention.

--ditto

â "So long as the contested information is available online, the reply should be attached to it, for example through a clearly visible link."

--ditto

â Long replies are fine. "There should be flexibility regarding the length of the reply, since there are (fewer) capacity limits for content than (there are) in off-line media."

-ditto

So, all I will do is add a small line at the bottom of my Blog that says "Whatever you say, someone else can answer if they feel compelled to!"...
As in, a blog ?

Re:A BLOG !

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Its supposed to go up within 24 hours...so why not just add a link at the bottom of the entry in question. Optimize the appearance of fairness, yet since most people read these sequentially you wouldn't have to worry to much about people going back and rereading yesterday's blog. Thus, you comply and still get to (mostly) express just your side (to most of your readers).

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this is just a proposal. How many idiotic proposed bills get canned in the U.S every year? Hell, how many idiotic bills get shot down in the senate every year?

If you're European (Check) and you think this sounds bad (Check) read the propsoal (Will do) and write to your MEP (You'll probably have to find out who they are first of course) and object. Explain why.

Hopefully we can stop it becoming an actual idiotic law.

why a chilling effect?

[jd142]

I can still say anything I want. I can say slashdot sucks on my blog. All I have to do is give the slashdot editors a chance to put up a message on my blog that says "no we don't". I can still say anything I want. And since linking to a response is acceptable, I could even tell them, "Fine, I'll put a link up to your response."

If you look at some of the web pages that make fun of a corporation and got in trouble, they put up the response and then make fun of it, so not much will actually change.

If anything, this might make free speech *more* available, since anyone who says "wal-mart sucks" has a non-onerous way of placating wal-mart without having to take down the text that offended wal-mart.

Recently, we saw Penny-Arcade forced to take down a Strawberry Shortcake parody. What if instead, all they had to do was put American Greetings' response to the parody. And then since they've complied with the law, they wouldn't have had to take the strip down. And what if they could use that compliance as an additional defense?

Re:why a chilling effect?

[MrFredBloggs]

It's chilling because it says that people have to take responsibilty for their actions. Some people don't like that.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[RandyF]

Recently, we saw Penny-Arcade forced to take down a Strawberry Shortcake parody.

Stealing via copyright violation is different than freedom of speech.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Randolpho]

If I had mod points at the moment, I'd waste them all on your post. :)

I agree, this is probably the biggest reason why people are against it. "It will stifle free speech", they say, because "it will keep people from posting what they really feel if they have to deal with the consequences."

Exactly. You have to deal with the consequences. People in today's society (well, at least the U.S. for you foreign devils out there ;)) want to do what they want in a consequence-free environment.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[eddie can read]

I can still say anything I want. I can say slashdot sucks on my blog. All I have to do is give the slashdot editors a chance to put up a message on my blog that says "no we don't".

And if what they post on your website is libelous against someone else? Then this libelled third party sues you for posting libellous comments about them?

Or suppose in their response they say something nasty about a third party. Now of course the third party has a right to respond on your website, so they do, and now the first party has a right to respond to that, etc. You become moderator to a Usenet newsgroup. But a moderator with the government constantly breathing down his back. And God forbid that you should ever make a mistake and fail to post something on time or make an error in copying the post.

Freedom of speech and of the press includes the freedom to edit content, and therefore it includes the freedom to exclude as well as include whatever you want. Any curtailment of that freedom is a curtailment of the freedom of the press.

Let's take the European idea to the logical conclusion. If people have the right to reply in the same physical place (e.g. the website) as the criticism, then why not in the same article, why not right after the very sentence in which the criticism takes place? If it really is a fundamental right to reply in the same place and in a timely manner, then why shouldn't critics be obliged to let their targets know ahead of time what they are going to publish, so that their targets can prepare a reply thereby avoiding unfair damage to their reputation? And if people's ownership rights over their own reputation extends to the right to force a critic to include their own response in the same location and in a timely manner, then why does it not extend to the right to edit the very text that is critical? If the criticism is unfair, then its very existence has potential to unfairly damage the reputation of the target, and therefore the target should have the right to exercise editorial control. And what about a public speaker? What if someone gets up in front of an audience and says something critical of someone else? Maybe the target has the right to append a response and force the speaker to read their response. Why not? It would be nothing other than an exercise of their right to force the critic to host a response in the same place as the criticism and in a timely manner.

If that sounds wrong, then maybe the basic ideas underlying it are wrong. Maybe the target of a criticism does not have the right to force the critic to do anything to host their response.

The article has some good points, which are worth considering:

Article segment.

First, a right of reply penalizes an Internet speaker or publisher. It takes time to receive a reply, to edit it for space, and to verify that it actually came from the person being criticized. In many cases, the cost may be minimal, but in marginal cases, it is likely to stifle robust political discussion--which lies at the heart of a democracy.

Second, the proposal substitutes an unelected bureaucrat's judgment about what material is appropriate for a mailing list, a chatroom or a Web log for the judgment of the person who first created the resource.

End article segment.

If anything, this might make free speech *more* available, since anyone who says "wal-mart sucks" has a non-onerous way of placating wal-mart without having to take down the text that offended wal-mart.

I believe you are mistaken: as far as I can see, this additional requirement in no way cancels the right of a person to sue, e.g., for libel.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[haystor]

Its chilling because it means that I will have to do some (albeit small) amount of work without compensation just because someone doesn't like my opinion.

In the US, Amendment 1 says I can have my opinion. The thirteenth amendment says I don't have to do any work for this other guy without compensation. One of these would have to give here in the US. It would either have to be a waiver of the thirteenth or a qualification of the first.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already limits to your freedom of speech. If you libel/slander someone, you will have to do something that you don't want to do, without compensation. That may be going to court or, with this law, placing a counterstatement (or a link to it) on your page.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[holt]

That wasn't a copyright violation, it was a trademark violation. And it shouldn't have been that, either, as it was clearly a parody and no one in their right mind would have confused the Penny Arcade version with the official one.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if what they post on your website is libelous against someone else?

Counterstatements are usually limited to factual depictions. "No, Slashdot does not suck" would not have to be published. Things like "we did not mass-moderate" would make a valid counterstatement. Where publishers are required to publish counterstatements today, they are prepended by a disclaimer which says that the presented view is that of the other party and publication is required by law. The publisher is not liable for the contents of the counterstatement, the other party is.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[eddie can read]

Counterstatements are usually limited to factual depictions. "No, Slashdot does not suck" would not have to be published.

That is an excellent illustration of what I and others mean by "chilling effect". That is the sort of picayune legal detail that you need to consult a lawyer to make sure you get right. So now publishing a website includes the cost of legal advice. Talk about chilling effect.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[moonbender]

You're not totally wrong, but many of your points aren't really valid. I assume (IANAL) the courts will interpret how long a reply exactly may be to still be acceptable, but 100 GB replies are just ridiculous. I'd wager the actual terms will be relative to the original text - a maximum of 10 times the original size would seem appropriate to me. Don't forget content may only be linked - it probably does not have to be on your server, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that, especially in the case of private websites, you may refuse to host it yourself.
I doubt very much that anything apart from very standard HTML is allowed - maybe even only plaintext, or alternatively the whole reply could be offered as a PDF. Keep in mind a judge can probably decide what's reasonable and what isn't - obviously obscure server side code is just not appropriate for a typical reply!

So there really isn't much to the alleged taking control of your site. I still think it sucks, though, and I doubt it'll be wildly enforced. (Which doesn't mean it should be legislated, obviously, quite to the contrary.)

Re:why a chilling effect?

[MrFredBloggs]

So don't think of it as extra work. When you post something about someone, make sure you make a mental note that "I may have to post little message or a link or something next to this, later".

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Reziac]

In fact, this law strikes me as the opposite of free speech:

The doctrine of free speech is that I can say pretty much whatever I want (minus stuff like libel, here ignored for brevity). However, free speech does NOT require that YOU *listen* to ME.

What this law effectively does, is that in return for ME saying what I want to, it forces ME to listen to YOU, and furthermore makes sure everyone who listens to ME *also* listens to YOU.

Since when does "free speech" mean that when I speak MY mind, I also have to speak YOUR mind? How is it fair that *I* am required to be *someone else's* mouthpiece?

Further: Imagine if everyone who makes a negative comment about, say, the Church of Scientology, was forced to publish the megaton of CoS rebuttal that would surely follow. And an easy trick for preventing any future negative comments would be to simply make the rebuttal so large that it used up all your allowed webspace. (And imagine the bandwidth bills after CoS drones were then instructed to slashdot your site.)

Imagine if rebuttal processes got into these giant communal blogs like Slashdot?!

Re:why a chilling effect?

[eddie can read]

This law doesn't change that. It just offers a more civilized way of settling a dispute than dragging eachother to court over published statements.

It places new legal requirements on the publisher and gives the target of criticism one more stick by which to beat the critic. It does not offer a civilized way of settling a dispute, since that civilized way already exists should the publisher choose it. You can't give me something I already have.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[haystor]

If I libel or slander someone I can expect to show up in court.

With this law I would have to incur this small amount of work even when I'm right and they're wrong. Why should I have to turn over my forum or take my viewers out of my forum just because someone claims to be wronged?

I much prefer the system where I get to say anything that isn't illegal (basically anything that isn't untruthful and damaging to someone else).

If I say "Ford makes crappy cars" do they get to reply? If Ford posts on their website "#1 in customer satisfaction" does every single Ford customer that disagrees get to reply with equal prominence that Ford would get on all of the "Ford sucks" sites? I doubt it would work out that way.

Basically, you have no right to make me provide you with a forum for your opinion and law that makes me provide you with that forum (at my expense) is wrong.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[raduf]

It's more then just taking responibility.

In the beginning you could put anything up on the net, and it was the user's job to select/judge/rate or otherwise use theit minds to decide weather it was worth anything.
There were/are plenty of moderated areas to help the user in this (slashdot is one) but it is ultimately his responsibility.

Things are changing however. DMCA, the yahoo natzi memorabilia suit, now this, the trend is to start placing responsibility on the poster.

Which I think is not so good. Yes, more and more normal, not technical people enter the internet, children, and they need to be protected. But I think more effort should be invested in creating "safe" areas, with various definitions of safe, instead of imposing a norm on all net activity.

But I think more important is something else.
This trend is placing a burden on every net user. Any forum moderator, webmaster, ISP or other form of communication facilitator (which very soon will mean almost everybody) will be required to follow guidelines and regulations and check periodically if he is breaking a number of laws. Laws which are far less obvious then the ones in the real world.

So I'm not saying it's not right. I'm just wondering if it's worth the freedom we _will_ loose over it.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[eddie can read]

So basically you're saying that since it gives the target of criticism a new, small stick by which to beat the critic, the critic may actually be better off since that might defuse the conflict.

If you genuinely believe it would help the critic, then you should support making this law optional. Since critics would benefit from it, they should sign up for it, no? Of course, if it's optional, it's not much of a law. In fact the current situation is already this way: the critic has the option of posting the rebuttal and thereby defusing the situation.

So the law should no be passed.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[spiritraveller]

This will definitely have a chilling effect.

Say you have a consumer site you have created where you review cars. General Motors doesn't like your review of its latest gas-gulper...

Not only can they threaten to bring whatever frivolous lawsuits their lawyers can dream up, thus scaring you into taking down the review because you can't afford legal representation. They can also force you to put up their version that says,

"The latest review of our gas gulper posted here was filled with outright lies and was funded by Honda. And the reviewer is on crack."

Now, how is that not going to chill freedom of speech?

Anything that regulates a small website owner is by definition going to have a chilling effect on free speech, since the strength of the small website owner is low cost. Anytime you add regulations, it adds costs. It adds money for lawyers, and mindspace for the website owner, who should be thinking about making a better website, not complying with EU Code #123123889023.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[5KVGhost]

Nonsense. It's chilling because it imposes a penalty on free speech. Expressing my opinions does not carry with it the "responsibility" to express other people's opinions. Both Europe and the US already have libel and slander laws to address legally infinging speech. If someone doesn't like what I say and wants to say something different then they can get their own damn blog.

If every potentially controversial opinion carries with it legal penalties requiring that you spend untold hours allowing responses (and responses to responses) then people will naturally steer clear of expressing those opinions, and that's not a good thing. Just what we need: flamewars with byzantine EU bureacracies built right in.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Jordy]

Since this requires knowledge of the owner of speech or at least the forum to reply, it would suggest the elimination of anonymous critism which is something rather sacred in the US.

For example, I can get up on my anonymous soap box taking the form of a flyer I tack onto people's doors at night and claim that I believe Ashcroft to be the reincarnation of Hoover without the risque wardrobe. I can do this without fear that the government won't force anyone to give up my identity (though with Ashcroft running things I might be labeled as a terrorist as an excuse to do it anyway).

Of course I may be misinterpreting this and heck, for all I know Europe doesn't have anonymous free speech.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[nutshell42]

What this law effectively does, is that in return for ME saying what I want to, it forces ME to listen to YOU, and furthermore makes sure everyone who listens to ME *also* listens to YOU.

No, in return for you saying what you want to, it forces you to mention that the party you were talking about has also something to say.

You don't have to listen to their reply, noone else has to listen to them, it just has to be available

Re:why a chilling effect?

[IthnkImParanoid]

it will keep people from posting what they really feel if they have to deal with the consequences."
Exactly. You have to deal with the consequences. People in today's society (well, at least the U.S. for you foreign devils out there ;)) want to do what they want in a consequence-free environment.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. There are still consequences in US law for libel, slander, incitement of violence, etc. It is just this one consequence I (and probably most of the slashdotters) disagree with: being legally obligated to publish a response. If I want to share my experiences with SBC DSL tech support, it would be an extremely negative view, and I would definitely feel rights of free speech were being violated if I was forced to host some marketing/damage control FUD on my site.

Imagine all the blogs and parody sites that rip on (in a non libelous way) corporations or public figures. They certainly have the resources to answer on their own goddamn web page if I can afford to do it on mine. You can bet that soon, every high traffic site that says something bad about company X will have their official marketing letter FUD on there. It would be like hosting an advertisement from them.

I don't know about you, but it would piss me off.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[petwalrus]

"chilling effect" has to be the most overused press-phrase to date... it should be restricted to referencing the weather!

Re:why a chilling effect?

[spiritraveller]

The United States was founded on the principle that there should be NO governmentally enforced consequences to speaking the truth.

That is not just today's American society. It has been the state of American society since 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[geekoid]

Simple, abuse.
what if that skashdot message was 100 Megs, and they don't want you to use a hyperlink?

WHat if someone is critical of Linux? does that mean the originator of the opinion has to post a rebuttle from anyone who was ever involved with Linux?

Anytime any control of an opinion is taken away from the speaker, it has potiental to be abused i a manner that will stiffle speech.

People who want serious discussions, can have them, people who blow of steam, nobody want to rebut with anyways. The orginization can always put up a rebuttal on there own site as it is anyways. We do have libel laws.

The reason Penny-Arcade had to take that down was for copyright, not because of an opinion. This would not apply.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[oxygene2k2]

the problem with libel and slander is that you have to enforce it in court..

* do you have the money to fight a media bully?
* how does it help your reputation, if you win?

media bullies usually don't talk about their lost trials

try the "hey, CNN! According to art. foo in the BAR act, I want you to carry my response to your try to damage my reputation at the same place where this article was"
if that doesn't work, you have another point to make in court..

Re:why a chilling effect?

[raduf]

The net is gonna change a lot in the next decade. Just because now it's a breeze to add a feedback forum doesn't mean that it will be for _any_ type of media.

Maybe some judge will decide someday google has to offer feedback because it's a news site. Or maybe 5 years from now 50% of news will be delivered in a freakish ultra mobile wireless user-dependent anonymous fashion and it'll be _really_ hard to tell which users read which news.

I'm now saying the right to reply is a bad thing per se. Only that applying it and other regulations on the internet as a whole is going to create more problems than it solves.

And about the picture of me etc. I would mind seeing it in Washington Post or CNN, or other "serious" news site. But i would not deny everybody's right to do it. Let's say my ex, or a friend/aquintance etc. should be able to express themselves without consulting a lawyer first.
And what's the difference? I don't know. Maybe WP or CNN are news organisations and should accept the responsability for this, while my ex is just my ex with a forum.

One more thing. I'm not really against this particular regulation. If anything I'm for it. But I strongly dislike the fact while each regulation is justified, in the not-too-distant future their sum forces me to hire a lawyer.

Maybe that's civilisation after all - learning to respect more rules. But as sound/simple system engineering it sucks.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Kinniken]

Further: Imagine if everyone who makes a negative comment about, say, the Church of Scientology, was forced to publish the megaton of CoS rebuttal that would surely follow. And an easy trick for preventing any future negative comments would be to simply make the rebuttal so large that it used up all your allowed webspace.

I don't know about the proposed law, but at least in the French laws on "right of reply" for newspaper it is stated that the accued party has the right to an "equivalent" reply to the article he objects to. Ie, if he feels attacked by a ten-liners on page 25 of the newspaper, he does not get 20 pages starting with the cover in reply. I assume this principle could be easly extended to stop that problem.

(And imagine the bandwidth bills after CoS drones were then instructed to slashdot your site.)

What does the CoE's proposal has to do with a slashdotting by CoS drones?

Re:why a chilling effect?

[5KVGhost]

the problem with libel and slander is that you have to enforce it in court..

So what? All laws ultimately have to be enforced in court, including this one. If the existing laws aren't having the effect they were originally intended to have then they need to be re-examined. Making another law, one even broader and more vague than the existing ones, will certainly not help.

Nor should the law presume that the defendant is a "media bully". Do you have any idea how many frivilous, wacky, crackpot lawsuits media outlets deal with all the time? Would you suggest that Bob Blogger should bear that same burden?

Re:why a chilling effect?

[ThaReetLad]

the key word there is TRUTH. if you speak the truth you have nothing to fear. If you report propaganda as truth you deserve everything you get.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Tony-A]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it as chilling, more the opposite.
My right to free speech does not include my right to silence you. If you disagree with me, you can state so and why. I am not however required to give you an unedited soapbox. I can also state responses as "apparently from", "supposedly from", or "claiming to be from" or "purportedly from" the responder.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Tony-A]

You publish their response as their response.
(With appropriate editorial commentary;)

If I want to share my experiences with SBC DSL tech support, it would be an extremely negative view, and I would definitely feel rights of free speech were being violated if I was forced to host some marketing/damage control FUD on my site.
Think that one through. Imagine the juxtaposition of technical complaints and marketing hype. What is blatently obvious is the inappropriateness of their response to the issues.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Tony-A]

It places new legal requirements on the publisher and gives the target of criticism one more stick by which to beat the critic.

Pretty lame stick.

One of the basic rules is to never try to be funnier than a night-club comedian. Even if you are funnier, the deck is heavily loaded in his favor. Similarly you have editorial rights in just how you present the response by your target. This doesn't even begin to level the playing field.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[danila]

If they want to DOS your site, they can do it now. After all, it doesn't matter whether they download a 1Mb page 1 thousand times or download a 10Kb page 100 thousand times, doesn't it?

Re:why a chilling effect?

[mattis_f]

Even with this law, it doesn't require you to listen to me. However it forces you to let ME talk to the people YOU have been talking to (about me!). You don't have to be my mouthpiece; all you have to do is to shut up for a while and let me talk. I know that for some people it's hard, but if free speech should fill any purpose, then people must be given different views. That's the goal of free speech - to expose us to different opinions (and not just the governments!). And slashdot for sure would not have a problem. Anyone can reply here. :-)

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Guppy06]

"it will keep people from posting what they really feel if they have to deal with the consequences."

"People in today's society (well, at least the U.S. for you foreign devils out there ;)) want to do what they want in a consequence-free environment."

Name one US state or territory that doesn't have slander and libel laws on the books.

Bearing the burden of publishing a rebuttal isn't about taking responsibility for your own actions, it's about taking responsibility for theirs as well. In the US, you are penalized if you say something you know to be untrue, especially if you do it maliciously. This law will effectively penalize you for saying anything, because you now have to buy two soapboxes instead of just the one.

For all the talk about media consolidation in the US and about how the situation is "better" in the EU, this law helps to ensure that only the powerful media conglomerates can publish criticisms. Freedom of the press now belongs to only those who can afford two.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Zebbers]

consequences? wtf are you smoking

you can respond all you want

with your own fucking resources

this is forcing people to use their own resources for people they disagree with

IE: democrats have to let republicans speak at their dinner parties

i think fucking not

this has little to do with consequences. please, tell me. what consquences does this help further?

Re:why a chilling effect?

[gibson_81]

If I libel or slander someone I can expect to show up in court.

With this law I would have to incur this small amount of work even when I'm right and they're wrong.

... and of course Right always wins in a court? I mean, no-one ever got executed in the U.S., only to be found not guilty after they were killed, right? I think I'd rather have a system where both views are published in the same forum so everyone can read both sides and decide for themselves whom they'll believe, rather than one where whoever can hire the most expensive lawyer is "right" ...

Re:why a chilling effect?

[eddie can read]

I can't even make any sense of that. What are you talking about? All I caught was mention of "levelling the playing field", which is a favorite little bit of rhetoric that is quite popular among enemies of freedom (e.g., protectionists, "boo hoo, the foreign imports are too cheap, the state needs to impose tariffs to level the playing feel, waaaa").

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Reziac]

"You don't have to listen to their reply, noone else has to listen to them, it just has to be available."

So why can't they make it "available" on their own damned site? If someone is that interested, it'll be found and seen just as mine was. Why is the burden on me to tell the world when someone else has something to say?

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Reziac]

Here's the meatspace equivalent (plergb defined as anything controversial):

Let's say we belong to an anti-plergb club. We hate plergb. Every week one of us talks about how much plergb sucks.

Under this law (applying it equally to both spoken and printed expressions) the anti-plergb club would be forced to allow pro-plergb speakers equal time at every meeting.

By extension, a religious sermon about how unbelievers are going to hell could be required to give equal time to atheists. Yeah, I'll bet that'll go over big, in print or otherwise.

Re:why a chilling effect?

[Alsee]

the key word there is TRUTH. if you speak the truth you have nothing to fear.

Wrong. This is not a slander/libel law. There is no "truth defense". It legally requires you to publish their reply no matter what.

-

wow

[Apreche]

This would make like a reply from MS on every single /. story a requirement.

But I bet no matter what they say MS's replies will be spelled correctly.

Re:America seems really terrible...

[stinky wizzleteats]

Maybe, just maybe - Europe's onto a good thing, actually.

Or the rule is intended simply to make life difficult enough to restore the operational ceiling of free speech to those with the means to publish information in conventional forms. Sort of like requiring a test before voting. On paper a good idea, but in practice a means of controlling participation.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[hedge_death_shootout]

"Europe has a far freer press than any other continent."

A gross over-generalisation, and probably not true - the USA has a freer press and more freedom of information, dunno about Canada - Mexico I am less confident about.

(BTW, I'm a European)

I reject this

[PaulGrimshaw]

"This will likely have a chilling effect on Internet communication (at least in Europe)."" I reject this... Wheres your proof? ;)

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Newspapers are under no obligation to print letters to the editor. Generally they will print a retraction if the original article was in error, but they don't have to, and it is then upto the individuals concerned to sue the newspaper in question.

Why should an electronic forum be forced to post a response? Why can't the responder post it on their own website/mailing list/forum as generally happens now?

Microsoft

[stephenry]

So... I assume that Microsoft will be hiring quite soon to account for the increased work-load?

Steve

Why is this not good?

[Niles_Stonne]

Why should you, or I, or anyone else have the "right" to post slanderous or just plain false comments about companies/people without their ability to respond?

Frankly, if someone starts posting bad things about me or my company somewhere, I really would like to be able to respond to those comments.

My only concern about this is the potential for abuse:

Let's say that I post a "Company X sucks" rant on my web site... Company X sends a response, that according to this law would be required to be posted on my site. Company X's response is in the form of an extremely large file. Company X then has an employee post an anonymous article to Slashdot ( First use of annoying new low in EU! Take a look _here_[annoyingly large file, hosted on my server]). My hosting company kindly then sends me a bill for the bandwidth useage, and I quietly go bankrupt...

Re:Why is this not good?

[no reason to be here]

As far as abuse goes, the article states the law is satisfied with just linking to the reply, you could insist that the firm you criticized host it on their own servers, and link to their page.

alternately, if they won't host the file, and you are forced to host it (but that doesn't seem to be what the law says), you could convert it to some other format to make it easier (e.g., instead of hosting the 100 page pdf they give you, host 100 plain text files).

Re:Why is this not good?

[Shenkerian]

Let's say that I post a "Company X sucks" rant on my web site... Company X sends a response, that according to this law would be required to be posted on my site. Company X's response is in the form of an extremely large file. Company X then has an employee post an anonymous article to Slashdot ( First use of annoying new low in EU! Take a look _here_[annoyingly large file, hosted on my server]). My hosting company kindly then sends me a bill for the bandwidth useage, and I quietly go bankrupt...

Or let's say that you kindly RTFA and, in particular, this part: "It may be considered sufficient to publish (the reply) or make available a link to it" (emphasis mine).

Re:Why is this not good?

[imsabbel]

You only need to post a link to the reply

Re:Why is this not good?

[sebi]

The response is supposed to be in the same format as the original. So if you wrote something then they should reply with writing. Furthermore you will not necessarily be forced to host their file. The proposal explicitly states, that links will be acceptable. So if someone decides to reply to you in form of a film you can tell them to host it themselves and just post the link. Same for audio. I can't think of any other form that would result in an extremely large file.

Re:Why is this not good?

[dzym]

Company X then has an employee post an anonymous article to Slashdot ( First use of annoying new low in EU! Take a look _here_[annoyingly large file, hosted on my server]).

That's alright, nobody on slashdot actually reads the linked articles anyway.

Re:Why is this not good?

[tycage]

The response is supposed to be in the same format as the original. if you wrote something then they should reply with writing.

Does that mean that if I write a song that is critical of a company they would have to write a song for their reply?

Or perhaps a haiku would be a better example! :)

Re:Why is this not good?

[Blondie-Wan]

What if the offended party simply submits the response to you, though, and doesn't post it somewhere else where you can link to it? Wouldn't you still have to post it?

Re:Why is this not good?

[Bob(TM)]

The implication of the proposal implies the burden of providing for the reply is on the individual generating the original expression, not the rebutter. That would seem to limit what forms you can require.

It's hard to tell but the language on linking could have more to do with the same issues as linking to the DeCSS code. Looking at it from that point-of-view points toward the language as intending to legitimise linking as a form of distribution.

Re:Why is this not good?

[sebi]

Does that mean that if I write a song that is critical of a company they would have to write a song for their reply?

If you only communicate your ideas in the form of songs then it would make sense that the response was an audio file as well. Not a song, but a recording of someone reading the response. If you only provide downloads then it wouldn't make sense to suddenly post a letter.

Re:Why is this not good?

[PhxBlue]

Why should you, or I, or anyone else have the "right" to post slanderous or just plain false comments about companies/people without their ability to respond?

You don't have that right - and if you do libel another party, they don't just have the "right to reply." They have the right to sue the pants off your arse.

Re:Why is this not good?

[mindriot]

Why is there any more potential for abuse than right now? I mean, provided it is on topic for slashdot, I could go ahead and let slashdotters blast your server and your bank account back to the stone age right now... this law doesn't increase the potential for abuse. First, as others have stated, you can choose to only link to the response by Company X. And second, if your rant was so exciting that Company X would actually bother to get you slashdotted, and slashdotters even decide it's interesting enough for them to slashdot you, your server is probably dead already from when you posted your original rant.

Re:Why is this not good?

[Kevitt]

How about because I should have the basic fundamental human right to state my OPINION about whatever topic, whether it be a company or something I just dreamed up. If my opinion of XYZ Corp. isn't what they like, well then that's just plain tough. Life sucks, XYZ Corp sucks... deal with it.

Re:Why is this not good?

[djeaux]

Or let's say that you kindly RTFA and, in particular, this part: "It may be considered sufficient to publish (the reply) or make available a link to it"(emphasis mine).

The troublesome point is that it may be sufficient to publish the reply or make available a link to it. I would assume that a court would have to decide which was sufficient in cases where the original publisher & respondent can't agree on how to post the reply.

I'm sure an aggrieved "victim" could come up with plenty of reasons why the large file would have to be posted at the original publisher's site. Their first one would likely be, "Why should I have to pay for the bandwidth to disseminate my reply to the publisher's reckless & malfeasant criticism of me?" In short, the respondent would offer exactly the same reason the original publisher wouldn't want it on his/her site.

Another impossible-to-implement rule for the Internet. But if the recommendation passes into law, it might be a boon for hosting services not based in the EU. "Use our friendly blog-hosting service & avoid troublesome European equal-time laws!"

Re:Why is this not good?

[geekoid]

ok, lets say that you kndly UTFA. which part of OR do you not understand?

Re:Why is this not good?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why should you, or I, or anyone else have the "right" to post slanderous or just plain false comments about companies/people without their ability to respond?"

But they already do have the right to respond on their own web page!

If its libelous then you can be sued.

But if you say "I think Corporation X SUCKS!", then that's protected speech. Corporation X just has to "suck" it up and go on with life. They aren't "owed" a rebuttal.

Admit it... deep down, you don't like free speech because its, well, its just not fair!

Re:Why is this not good?

[Guppy06]

"So if you wrote something then they should reply with writing."

I criticize in stripped-down HTML. They respond with obfuscated Word XP. Or maybe even Powerpoint. "But, hey, it's both writing!"

what the?

[Datasage]

Lets see here. In a court of personal opinion eurpeons are now going to be required to give those critized a chance to respond?

Well on a mailing list this isnt a big deal. critsism and response happen all the time. But i the case of blogs? That makes no sense. A blog is simply a journal or diary. The only diffrence is its avilable to the world. Do you want to response to critisim in your journal?

Re:what the?

[sebmol]

If you publish a diary, it's no longer a diary. If you publish anything, you better make sure that what you publish isn't libel. While you might say that "X has shit for brains" in your diary, if you put that in your blog and X can prove that he indeed does not have fecal matter in his head, he can sue you for libel in your blog. I doubt any judge will care much for your view that your blog is just a diary.

Everybody can reply

[miradu2000]

This law makes no since because unlike print where as few people have the methods to publish, on the web ANYONE can write something and throw it online for a miminal, or no cost. If you want to reply to something in particular , start a blog, i mean what else are they other than a commentary on a specfic authors take on life...

The beauty of the web is that everyone has a voice, and there is no need to force others to publish stuff that is not their own.

Re:Everybody can reply

[davecb]

"Right to reply" was and is one of the distinguishing characteristics of mailing-lists and news. Because one could reply to a post/email which criticised you, you had an alternative to suing.

This makes it harder to sue: the judge says "Did you write a letter to the editor, and was it published?" If you haven't used your right of reply, you may not get standing to sue.

In non-litigatious countries, this means fewer frivolous lawsuits clogging up the courts.

--dave

Re:Everybody can reply

[holt]

You make no since.

Re:Everybody can reply

[sebmol]

If you write something false or disparaging on your blog, how is my posting a correction on my blog going to make any difference to the people reading your blog?

The point of this is to let me correct a statement you made about me to the same people you made the statement to in the first place.

What??

[SuperDuG]

HEhehehee okay lemme get this straight ...

I live in England (well I don't but bear with me here)... and I write something bad about tony blair on my website.

I then have to allow an avenue for tony to be able to "Comment" or "Give his side" on MY WEBSITE???

What the hell? Who comes up with this shit. If someone writes nasty things about you on their blog you write nasty things about them on your blog ... or is this just an American concept?

So what if I say something bad about someone in public, must I then allow them to speakerphone in and explain it from their perspective to my friends?

Re:What??

[Tharsis]

If someone writes nasty things about you on their blog you write nasty things about them on your blog ... or is this just an American concept?

Well, if President Bush says some nasty things about you in his blog, what good does it do if you say some nasty things about him in your personal blog

Re:What??

[NickFitz]

No problem; Our Beloved Leader doesn't know how to go online.

Re:What??

[sebmol]

If you publish a periodic newspaper/newsletter and in it you say something nasty about Tony Blair, you better believe that Downing Street has the right to publish a correction in your newspaper.

You have the right to express your opinion. But you also have the responsibility that in doing so you don't infringe on somebody else's honor and dignity. If you make a biased comment in your newspaper or blog, why wouldn't you want to also publish the other side? The purpose of the press is to be a neutral party delivering facts to the readers. Why should publishing online be any different than publishing on paper or on Radio/TV?

Re:What??

[mindriot]

(at the risk of being trolled...)

Why are all you people so opposed to this? Hey, if you talk bullshit about someone in public, you'll have to let them get their chance to reply. Otherwise you might be committing slander. This stuff has been, if you rtfa, standard practice for all 'legacy' media for a long time. And why not? If I call you an asshole, isn't it your right to defend yourself? If I started the argument, then I should be the one allowing you to defend yourself.

What the hell? Who comes up with this shit. If someone writes nasty things about you on their blog you write nasty things about them on your blog ... or is this just an American concept?

If someone writes nasty shit about you, and you don't have access to their or another public forum to defend yourself, you're pretty much screwed because you do not have a possibility to fight back. In that case, such a law is your chance to enjoy equal rights, because even if that someone is able to speak a lot louder than you (and abuses that ability against you), you still get a chance to make yourself heard.

So what if I say something bad about someone in public, must I then allow them to speakerphone in and explain it from their perspective to my friends?

Yes. Why not?

I wonder how long this will last

[TheSHAD0W]

You folks do understand that this will apply to any online version of a newspaper? Might actually be a good thing, since right now newspapers, even online ones don't do a good job with retraction.

I don't believe this law will affect blogs that are run like forums (i.e. Slashdot), since there is plenty of opportunity for someone to post a rebuttal. (Might be tough to find once it was moderated into the ground, though... ;-)

This ruling might become unwieldy when someone decides to provide a multi-terabyte response. Or one full of pop-up ads.

good !!!

[mirko]

Now, I can open a slash forum in which I'll criticize anybody.
They'll reply publicly, I'll reply publicly...
At the end people will come to see how well they bite and I'll make money advertising.

OK, blagues a part, if it's only giving them the right to reply (according to the article, a URL is enough), then I don't mind, this will add tomye-community's animation.

Boundaries

[limekiller4]

Who decides what qualifies as "criticism?"

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

Are business covered? Do they have to post replies from their competitors? If a company claims that their product works, is that tacit criticism of someone who says that it does not? Does that person get to post their complaint on the offending companies website?

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

This is capitalistic gentrification. This is some organization planting a flag and claiming the internet as principally a business stomping ground.

Re:Boundaries

[RobinH]

Who decides what qualifies as "criticism?"

How about common sense? I would expect most points of disagreement would be resolved between the two parties, but ultimately, the courts could decide what qualifies as criticism.

This should definitely be considered in the U.S., especially with the way media conglomerates are starting to conglomerate. If it gets to the point where over 50% of what people watch comes from one huge company, they could conceivably have the ability to completely bad mouth politicians they see as "enemies", and the trusting public would be none the wiser. At least a law like this means that the criticised party is guaranteed airtime to rebut the argument in the same forum that they were attacked in. Sounds like a good idea to me.

It also follows the basic principle that the government exists to protect an individual's security. The media CAN do significant harm to a person by publishing false or questionable information. A law like this helps protect an individual from harm.

Re:Boundaries

[limekiller4]

I asked:
"Who decides what qualifies as "criticism?""

RobinH replied:
"How about common sense?"

Then you're sailing into very arbitrary waters. When you do, you're then at the mercy of a potentially capricious judge. Which is something that English law tries takes great pains to avoid.

I'd also like to point out that while saying "common sense," you did not actually answer any of the questions stated. These can be found in my original post" They're not really answerable because when you do take a position on a thing (which is precisely what law does) then you will find that there are people -- with good arguments -- that disagree. Then, once you're in the position of defending a tenuous position you will have proven my very point (that these questions are not at all cut-and-dried).

What qualifies as "criticism" is a matter of opinion, not common sense. Further, it, like love, is in the eyes of the beholder.

"I would expect most points of disagreement would be resolved between the two parties, but ultimately, the courts could decide what qualifies as criticism."

I can see why one might believe this but it won't work that way. This is because it will simply be another tool for those with the dough to proceed to weild.

"At least a law like this means that the criticised party is guaranteed airtime to rebut the argument in the same forum that they were attacked in."

Your argument is a sort of "if it is used only for good" things. Looks great on paper. But, like the DMCA, you have to look at the very likely (some might use the phrase "inevitable") concsequences. Do you really think that companies are not going to use this measure to quash legitimate criticism? I know I sure as heck don't have the time or the resources (much less the inclination) to set up a mechanism by which every vegitable, plant or mineral I think comes up short has the right to use my webspace and time to rebut my ideas.

Besides, what gives you the idea that there is some intrinsic human right to "equal time?" You have a right to speak. You do not have a right to a forum to be heard. You want to put up a website with your rebuttal, fine. Do so. I didn't rely on [insert thing here] to air my views. Why should they rely on me to air theirs?

"It also follows the basic principle that the government exists to protect an individual's security. The media CAN do significant harm to a person by publishing false or questionable information. A law like this helps protect an individual from harm."

This is already well covered by law; slander and defamation of character. Why do you need more laws? The only reason I can see is to chill speech. This isn't to defend against unfair criticism so much as stop all criticism before it begins.

Re:Boundaries

[j7953]

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.

Re:Boundaries

[limekiller4]

j7953 writes:
"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 op"

George Steinbrenner: Can I get thrown out of the game for what I think?
Umpire: No.
George Steinbrenner: I think you're an asshole!

What is "presented as fact" can also be fairly nebulous, though much less so I'll grant.

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

j7953 replied:
"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."

So what if I say the president is a liar. I didn't say the president of what. Who gets to reply? How specific does my object of criticism have to be prior to being able to level a response?

And as someone else noted, how big is this rebuttal allowed to be? Is the author of the rebuttal required to pay for the bandwidth used by the rebuttal? If not, why not?

I'm just astonished at what a large infrastructure this is going to require to settle these questions. Again, slander, libel and defamation of character are already illegal. This is sailing into some veeeery dangerous and arbitrary waters, IMO.

Nobody seems to be indicating how the stated goal here is not already covered by existing laws. What additional protection does this offer and should it be offered?

Re:Boundaries

[j7953]

And as someone else noted, how big is this rebuttal allowed to be? Is the author of the rebuttal required to pay for the bandwidth used by the rebuttal? If not, why not?

No, he's not required to pay. You said something about him that he thinks is wrong, so you have to accept the consequences and correct your mistake. (Note that I think he won't have a right of reply if you can proof that facts you presented were correct.)

Nobody seems to be indicating how the stated goal here is not already covered by existing laws. What additional protection does this offer and should it be offered?

Laws against libel only make the publication of libelous articles illegal, they can't retroactively change the fact that the article was published. A right of reply also can't change that, but at least it can make sure that the readers of the publication get to know that you think the article was wrong. If you only sue the editors they're not forced to publish that, even if you win.

I live in Germany, and we already do have such a law for newspapers etc., which seems to work quite well. It is very rare that a "forced reply" is published. Quality publications will publish rebuttals as letters to the editor anyway, so this is still the usual way.

However, while I think that basically a right of reply is a good idea, you are right: it can be difficult to decide if someone has a right of reply and if the reply doesn't contain anything you don't have to publish. Professional journalists have the necessary knowledge to answer those questions, and in the rare case where the writer of a reply actually might have a case, professional publications can always simple hire a skilled lawyer. But for individuals, the situation is somewhat different, they don't have the journalistic experience and they probably don't want to pay a lawyer, so there actually might be potential for abuse if this law is applied to personal online publications as well.

Re:Boundaries

[limekiller4]

j7953 asserts:
"No, he's not required to pay. You said something about him that he thinks is wrong, so you have to accept the consequences and correct your mistake. (Note that I think he won't have a right of reply if you can proof that facts you presented were correct.)"

Back this up.

Re:Boundaries

[j7953]

Back this up.

Sorry, I couldn't find a reference for this :-(

Re:Boundaries

[limekiller4]

This is what I'm worried about, misuse. If there are no protections to force or at least compel only those who actually need relief from seeking it, what you'll see is widespread abuse. And I think that is precisely what people fear here.

Re:Boundaries

[mattis_f]

First off, in Europe, companies are not allowed to make comparative commercials. Saying that your product works would not force you to accept a reply from the other company, saying that "our product works better than nnn's" might, but it's also considered unethical and you might have to pay a fine anyway.

This is not capitalistic gentrification. Quite the opposite, this protects you from being sued if you write something inappropriate. All you need to do is post a link.

The 'other products' I'm not sure about, but still, it haven't been a problem with other media. Why should it be with the internet?

Re:Boundaries

[limekiller4]

mattis_f writes:
"This is not capitalistic gentrification. Quite the opposite, this protects you from being sued if you write something inappropriate. All you need to do is post a link."

I was not aware that this provided any sort of indemnification. Can you reference that?

Nothing new

[dirkx]

Note that similar rules already exist in most of europe for other types of non registered media. This just confirms that the internet becomes more normal once more.

And it once again sees removed a large chunk of friviolous, US inspired, type of lawsuits we can just do without, from the general 'speak your mind on the net' equasion. Not to mention the fact that it equals the playing field between the big guys and the small guys. So good for the small guys; and tough, but fair to the big guys.

As to verifying the authentity; that it is really up to the publisher if he or she wants to limit the amounth of counter argument it wants to publish.

Dw

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Kamel Jockey]

you just have to allow the entity you are talking about a chance to reply

This sounds a lot like the old "Fairness Doctrine" that was applied to US radio broadcasts prior to 1988. That rule said that if you broadcasted X hours of programming with a certain point of view, you also had to broadcast X hours of programming with an opposing point of view. The main problem with this was that in many situations, one of the sets of programs was a ratings loser and hence a major money loser, so the radio stations would not broadcast either. Some people have even argued that this practice stiffled peoples' expression of controversial opinions on the radio.

Re:Thanks Council of Europe.

[mydigitalself]

lol.
come to think of it, where in the world is jon katz?? i haven't seen one of his rantings in ages.

At least not in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

At least not in the US. Such "right of reply" laws were ruled categorically unconstitutionl in the US a long tome ago. _Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo_, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). link

Maybe I don't get it

[CaptainZapp]

In the good old printed press there are certain rules that have to be followed.

For example you will be in hellish hot water as a paper when you just print accusations without even giving the accused so much as a chance to answer to those allegations.

Also, if somebody feels unfairly treated he has a right to a counter statement (Gegendarstellung in German). That's not an elaborate article, but the right to set the facts straight from his/her position. The paper doesn't have to agree with it an can explicitely mention that, but they must print it with few exceptions.

So why the fsck should this be different on the net then in the printed press? Should Mr. Drudge have the right to smear around his rumours, without the right of a potentially badly harmed person to even respond to it? I think not.

By the way: This right to a counter statement is based on Swiss press laws. think Germany is quite comparable.

Re:Maybe I don't get it

[starcraftsicko]

So why the fsck should this be different on the net then in the printed press?

Guess it depends on where you are from. In some jurisdictions (like the USA), the press can't be made to do anything. If the libel you, you can sue, but unless it is c clear-cut case, you will lose.

The thing that makes the internet great is that anyone at all can easily post their thoughts and ideas. If an appropriate forum for those ideas does not exist, it is simplicity itself to create one.

Because anyone can post their ideas with relative ease, internet content censorship is difficult. Ideas are not easily supressed at rhe whim of corporate or government agencies.

In the case of print media, the readers and advertisers pay the printing and distribution costs. Because these are usually (hopefuly?) profitable ventures, presumably they can afford at least some limited response. However, even in print media, right of response could be abused... with a 10,000 page response to a newspaper article.

The difference between web and print is that for non-commercial sites (no adverts or sales), readers actually cost the poster money for bandwidth and whatnot. The more that is on a site, the greater these costs. If I criticise the Republican Party (or the Democrats, or whatever), I would be compelled to PAY to spread their message under this rule (if it was passed in my jurisdiction). Is this reasonable?

Re:Maybe I don't get it

[sebmol]

This stirs up so much debate because there's no such law in the US. The Supreme Court ruled that newspapers cannot be compelled to publish anything by law because that would infringe on their right to free speech.

Re:Maybe I don't get it

[Abcd1234]

Funny, that sounds like the right to free censorship to me. :) After all, the paper can continue to say what they want... they're simply obliged to allow the offended party to respond.

Freedom of the press ...

[dougmc]

Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press

(paraphrased from press critic A.J. Liebling's famous phrase: Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.")

Well, if what we're discussing actually becomes law, not in Europe anymore!

Administratively good & bad

[Pond823]

I don't entirely see what the fuss is all about. It doesn't mean you can't say what you like about someone, just that if they find out about it, you have to post their reply. A bit like Slash. It will not stop anonymous@cowards, slander, libel or anything like that (you only have to see the UK tabloids to see that)

Of course they'll need more IT professionals to administer it...

Re:Administratively good & bad

[NickFitz]

you only have to see the UK tabloids

Exactly. Usual procedure is a front page splash saying <Famous Name here> Sucks Horse's Cock See pages 2,3,4,5,6,7 & 13, followed within days/weeks/months (depending on how long Press Complaints Commission/lawyers dick about for) by a small box on page 37, below the fold in 4 point type, saying "Sorry, we made that up".

Re:Gentlemen, fire up your trolls!

[stephenry]

Given her acting in the last two star wars films, I'm not too sure we'd be able to tell whether she was petrified or not.

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.

Pesticide logic.

[StealthBadger]

Think of a farmer applying bug killers to his crops. "Well gee, an ounce is about... well, about a 'glug', and if one glug is good for killing 'em, two or three must do the job right damn well!"

In the original proposal, the restriction to "professional" for this law would have opened up commentary and communication quite well. If you look at the BBC's news site the level of commentary and discussion on the articles is actually very good.

But opening up this requirement to EVERY site that puts an opinion online is pretty moronic, since the person who has money behind their opinion can have the PR staff zipping through hostile weblogs for an hour every afternoon cut-n-pasting the opposition into oblivion, while the smaller voices will have enough trouble just preserving the intended tone of their own sites.

Add this to the free speech case where Nike is suing for the right to lie in its marketing efforts, and the FUD wars coming up in Europe could make the MS vs. Linux diatribes look like sweet kisses from your first love.

goatsx

[CyberGarp]

What if someone complains about people who post offensive postings and gets a reply from goatsx? Do they have to post his reply? Maybe goatsx has a use after all, like irritating these lawmakers.

Re:goatsx

[CyberGarp]

Yeah. It's not a domain I keep on the tip of my fingers. Well I guess someone does.

Right of reply

[Alomex]

This will likely have a chilling effect on Internet communication (at least in Europe)."

The right of reply is not a chill on free speech. It is meant to be there as a counterbalance to smear campaigns financed by vested political/economic interests. This is often needed in practice. Do you know that the Clintons were exonerated of Whitewater scandal by all prosecutors including their arch-rival Kenneth Starr?

You didn't know that? Do you ever wonder why?

Re:Right of reply

[p3d0]

Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; float y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.

Interesting sig. The key, of course, is that C says 1/2 is zero. Your example would work if you substitute 0.5.

Council of Europe..

[Woxbert]

I wouldn't worry about this too much.

The Council of Europe is all about cultural and social rights, and it's pretty good at it.

The Council of Europe passes guidelines for the states and facilitates co-operation between different group.

What the Council of Europe doesn't do is legislate. Yes, I agree that in this case the well-meaning beaurocrats at the CoE have got it completely wrong, but this does not mean that it will become law in any country or region.

That's what the EU is for, and whilst the Council of Ministers (consisting of the Heads of State or Government) can be pretty authoritarian at times (still insisting they meet in secret!), the European Parliament is normally pretty good at defending people's rights, rather than attacking them, as most member states governments are so keen on doing (think Echelon).

Council of Europe

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Council of Europe is NOT a "quasi-governmental" entity. Indeed, it is an intergovernmental one and is the closest thing there is to a central, federal, European government. Calling it "quasi-governmental" is a gross inaccuracy. More info here

Re:Council of Europe

[henrygb]

I think you may be confusing the Council of Europe with the European Council. The Council of Europe is similar to the Organization of American States, and promotes human, civil and democratic rights. The European Council (a.k.a. Council of the European Union) takes the major decisions for the EU, and is much more of a Government (when combined with the Commission and the Parliament).

The fact that both use the same flag, that their courts have similar names (CoE: European Court of Human Rights; EU: Europen Court of Justice), and that the EU Parliament uses the CoE Parliament Building in Strasbourg for most of its plenary meetings, all helps add to the confusion. The CoE has 45 members while the EU has 15.

Good Thing

[moofdaddy]

I personally think that this is a good time, all the law does is allow equal time. Scrolling through the comments I have seen a lot of people very negative about this and I don't understand why. This doesn't violate free speech ( and being an american I don't really know what Europes free speech laws are anyway) it just makes it so if someone decides on their website to attack someone else that they have a fair chance for rebuttle. There seems to be no better way to increase the flow of good infomration. As I write this though I've come to think of a few interesting situations. What about political campaigns? Do they have to allow their opponenet the chance to respond to their attacks? What about major companies who make advertising claims against other companies? Etc. I have no problem with either of these, I just think it'll be interesitng, and make for an intersting web site. " Our product is 10 times better then Ultrasoft" and now a message from ultrasoft "What they just said is not true."

Dosent matter.

[Unknown Poltroon]

If i write my opinion of the color of your house on your house in spray paint, it dosent affect you morgage either, but youre not gonna be happy with it

Re:Dosent matter.

[Randolpho]

That's only a valid analogy if my house happens to have my opinion about you written all over it.

sweeping conclusions

[snarkh]

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

Talk about being biased. Such absurd and ignorant generalizations from one, admittedly seemingly ill-conceived, law proposal.

One might as well look at the American health care and say, for better or for worse, US lacks all respect for well-being of its citizens.

Re:Newspapers too -- This is for Germany

[Wudbaer]

Replying to myself... *blush*: The stuff I wrote is valid for Germany where I am living, other EU countries may have different laws

Re:No Free Speech in Europe

[vrt3]

How does this limit free speech? You can still say what you want, and if someone says something about you that is untrue, you have the right to post a clarification. Both the original text and the reaction are available for everyone to see, so there is no censoring.

Why should the internet be treated differently?

[Wiseazz]

What if a news commentary anchor is critical of, say, our president (I know this is far-fetched, but stay with me here). They aren't obligated to give him a 30-second commercial spot in retaliation.

Newspapers are not required (though often do) publish retalitory letters to editorials.

That doesn't mean you won't at times have to answer for your comments - that's why we have legal mechanisms for handling slander, etc. But forcing personal blogs and web sites to post retalitory comments is, well, dumb.

Now, having said that, do we have to allow these folks a response on slashdot? Just curious.

Re:Why should the internet be treated differently?

[UrGeek]

Once, back in Lighter Days, back we America was a republic, we had anti-trust laws, and many people actually believed in the Bill of Rights, the FCC had what was known as the Same Time Rule. When a pundit expressed an opinion on a TV or radio program and sense radio specturm is a limited commodity doled out for FREE to broadcasted, they had an obligation to provide air time for differing opinions. This Eurolaw will NOT "have a chilling effect on Internet communication". It will make for MORE communication! I like it.

Re:Why should the internet be treated differently?

[Wiseazz]

Perhaps the problem lies in the blurring of lines between differing forms of media. If I read the article correctly (and I'm prone to miss things), it seems that personal blogs are also prone to this.

I liken this to hanging a sign on my front porch that proclaims "Bill Clinton sucks donkey balls" and having to allow the man an equally-sized sign to profess that he does not, in fact, suck donkey balls. (Ignoring the fact that I'm sure there are some local codes prohibiting the public use of the phrase "donkey balls" in that context)

So in this age where anyone can be an information or editorial provider to millions of people via the internet, where do these people fall when it comes to "journalistic" responsibility and personal opinion? How then can laws like this reasonably be applied? CNN.com is one thing - jimbobsjournal.com seems to be another.

I don't have a ready answer, but feel free to let me know your opinion.

Re:Why should the internet be treated differently?

[UrGeek]

You have a very good point. Perhaps this can be address by TLD - Journalist (and the corporate whores that pass for journalists) can either uses .news (I do not have a solution for this Anglocentics term, sorry) or stick with the current .com, which in the U.S. is probably more relevant. And bloggers can use .nom or .net or .per or something to indicate a personal site. Personal sites would be extempt to the Equal Space Rule.

I know, enforcement is impossible. But then we are just talking here, it has no basis in reality.

they don't have free speech anyway

[andy666]

in france the radio stations have to play a certain amount of usic in french. and in germany if you move you have to register with the local police station. europe is much more paternalistic ( fascist).

Re:they don't have free speech anyway

[andy666]

hey did i mention a little event called WW II in which more deaths were caused by europeans in less than 10 years then the rest of the century ?

i guess gun control would have been more handy to have in europe from 1939-1945.

Re:they don't have free speech anyway

[sebmol]

Oh, please. German privacy laws are some of the toughest you will ever find. There are very good reasons for the registration requirements to exist. For one, it allows law officals to track down your recent residence in case of criminal charges.

For another, there's no such thing as the American social security number in Germany. Almost twenty years ago, the German Supreme Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled that the ubiquitous use of a number to track citizens is unconstitutional. The registration requirements allow the government to keep some information on you while it bars the private sector from access to the same information.

Re:they don't have free speech anyway

[arevos]

You forgot to mention:

1. That the US singlehandedly won WW2.
2. Something about France surrendering/giving up/smelling of cheese.
3. Europeans are communist/socialist/in decline.
4. The US is the only country with the balls to fight "Terra'ism!"
5. The EU would be nothing without the US.
6. etc.
7. ditto.
8. more of the same.

Oh, and for true trollishness, remember to lump in all Europeans into one entity. For example: In WW2 Europe killed millions of Jews and surrendered so easily whilst simultaniously begging the US to help them.

Remember to selectively ignore facts. For instance, even though Germany was on the retreat in both World Wars before the US sent troops in, the US solely won the wars. Remember that the EU are socialist cowards with no free speech who, for some reason, are hesitant at waging wars against countries that obviously threaten the world with WMDs (despite non being found).

Even though you'd advocated the use of gun control, remember to remain patriotic and argue against gun control whenever any lousy European suggests it might ease the death toll of automatic weapons.

Have I missed anything? In any case, good trolling!

Re:they don't have free speech anyway

[andy666]

seiously though, what about the original issue ? don't you think restrictions on what languange a radio station uses is a bad thing ?

Re:they don't have free speech anyway

[andy666]

there are good reasons for those laws ? - like to keep track of where all those troublesome jews are ? oh i forgot, there are no jews left in germany. but in any case you've got some nice orderly lists.

Re:they don't have free speech anyway

[arevos]

Yup, I do. There's a lot of dumb laws around, whether you're in the USA or the EU. Software patents are being debated in the EU at the moment, but I don't hold out much hope that the politicians actually understand the issues.

Wherever in the world you go, people are people, and politicians are morons. Just a fact of life.

Bad Idea

[EQ]

So, lets see, you have the Holocaust Deniers who can force News sites to link to them every time they are mentioned in a news post, an accused rapist demanding linkage under court order to his victim's web site, Labor Party forced to link to Conservative Party, fascists/communists court-ordered posting every time they get criticized...

Something fundamentally wrong about that. What ever happened to the Marketplace of Ideas? Thomas Jefferson championed it in the USA, but the original idea came from European philosophers (Locke, etc).

Its my web space, I pay for it, why should I be forced to give credence and publicity to someone I am opposed to, on MY dime? They can use their own site and post there.

To parphrase an old hyper-mach-military saying (Kill them all and let God sort them out):

Post them all, and let Google sort them out.

Vox populi, and all that jazz...

Re:Bad Idea

[alienw]

What are you talking about? If you criticize a certain group harshly enough for them to write a response, then yes, they should be entitled to having that posted in response to your article. Why the hell not? Besides, it permits having a simple link to the response (which most good websites have anyway). If I say that Republicans suck ass, I might as well have a link to their rebuttal. This only maintains a balanced discussion.

All this does is keep people from writing bullshit on-line. If you think this would create a huge problem, just look at newspapers -- they have been subject to dozens of such laws (libel, right to response, etc.) and still manage to do fine.

Re:Bad Idea

[Chatterton]

Holocaust DeniersNews site deny to post the reply. Holocaus deniers go to court and are rebuked because of false theory. No reply on the web site.

Accused rapistVictim site deny to post the reply. Accused rapist go to court and is rebuked because of no diffamation. No reply on the web site.

The rule of thumb is: you can reply if and only if there is evident diffamatory, false information. Not just because you don't like what the other say.

Re:Bad Idea

[michaelggreer]

1) An accused rapist should be able to refute public accusations. Does accusation immediately condemn them? I thought we used courts for that.
2) This does not address statements of fact. If the rapist is convicted, stating so would not be arguable.
3) Your private website is not covered by this law, only professional on-line media.
4) This sounds very much like the marketplace of ideas to me (which, by the way, is a phrase from Karl Marx, not Locke). It allows those with fewer resources to respond to those who own (and market) the presses. Far from chilling, this opens up free speech to those with fewer means.

Re:Bad Idea

[sebmol]

So, lets see, you have the Holocaust Deniers who can force News sites to link to them every time they are mentioned in a news post

Denying the holocaust is a crime in most European countries that will send you straight to jail or make you pay a hefty fine. No "Holocause Denier" could ever exercise his right to rebuttal because he has no right to express his view in the first place.

What ever happened to the Marketplace of Ideas? Thomas Jefferson championed it in the USA, but the original idea came from European philosophers (Locke, etc).

Over time, people here came to the realization that leaving freedom of speach unlimited does more harm than good. As mentioned above, you don't have the right to publicly deny the holocaust. Many European countries also put other limits on your freedom of speech such as

• opposing democracy and promoting the establishment of any kind of non-representative government. This is also why Hitler's "Mein Kampf" can't be sold, bought or possessed in Germany except for the purpose of scientific research.
• libel and slander
• infringing on a person or organization's honor and dignity by, for example, publishing personal, intimate information that the person gave no consent to being published or publishing something without respect to the persons or organizations involved. This is also why the statement "soldiers are murderers" is a violation of law in Germany.

Re:Bad Idea

[EQ]

Your mention of newspapers is ludicous. They have large legal staffs to serve as a bulwark against complaints, and (at least here in the US) have constitutional guarantees that are strongly protected. That is not the case for web sites and individuals. I know of none who have legal help on retainer for free speech issues.

Forced balance is no balance at all. Thats what you do not seem to understand. Government coercion is not the answer. Plus, Free Speech is not neccesarily Fair Speech. Thats the price paid for it.

And did you not read my remarks about the free marketplace of ideas? It does not shackle me to my opponent, nor him to me. Our ideas compete on merit. If you want an opposing opinion, go look one up, don't force me to publish yours.

The government has NO RIGHT to FORCE me to use MY webspace to place a rebuttal and publicise it. Let the aggrieved party get their own and publicise it themselves.

And this law, given its use of the court system, would rapidly be turned abusive by the people with the money for lawyers and legal actions. Did you learn nothing from the USA's DMCA debacle? Do you realy want corporations running rampant over their critics?

As an example of how this kills free speech against bad corporations:

Say I criticize SCO harshly, but effectively enough to get their attention: your law would pit me defensively against SCO's lawyers in a court of law. I would either have to give-in preemptively regardless of merit, or else go to the expense of hiring an attorney myself and battle it out in court, else remove the posting that cause dthem to act.

Did you not consider that? Removal of the offending post is an alternative that would be pushed. Its a serious chill on free speech: People posting would have to consider whether posting a strongly worded opinion is worth the legal hassles it could generate, and if challenged, posters would have to calculate whether they have enough money and reources to fight, or if they are willing to be silenced and remove their post.

Your vision of "fair" is an open invitation to barratry and quashing of opposing opinions on the internet by those with power and money.

On a personal level, it would result in repugnant actions: say you are an abuse victim, and you post harshly about NABMLA. Now the courts, under this law, force you under legal penalty of fine or jail (for contempt of court) to post the reply/rebuttal of the very abuser that you suffered from, or remove the posting.

Its your money, your website, your opinion, and you somehow see no harm in the government forcing you hand over part of that to someone that you disagree with strongly enough to post critical things about them?

Look to all the consequences, especially the unintended ones that you have obviously blithely ignored.

Re:Bad Idea

[broeman]

Coming from Denmark, we recently had discussions about our constitution, as many politicians are getting tired of trying to interprete what people wrote 150 years ago. In a tv-discussion, the danish nazi-leader Johnny Hansen were talking about his rights. He has the right to say that the holocaust didn't exists, since it is not a part of the danish constitution, but not allowed to use the english/american word "nigger" (can I actually?) since the constituion follows up on our former law against slavery and those conditions it was formed by.

I am for one a person who likes Jeffersons ideology, but I can also see how it has developed in the US among other countries in the world. Brian Springer's documentary shows this very nicely, eventhough from the start of the 90's, I haven't seen any shift in the american news-broadcast (*hint* Fox News patriotism).

Back to the original story: As being in Denmark, and we also have the law about free reply, shouldn't the law already be counting for newspapers online? We see this regulary in newspapers (we are sorry that we said something wrong in the last edition) and television (we are sorry that it was not the truth anyway) without consequences. Here you would complain to a commitee, and this will then send it further to the media, and request to broadcast/print it, not nesecerally (I can't spell that word!) in a prominent place, but at least close.

For the Internet, it would propably mean professional medias online, blogs that is regulary and creates influence in the society and companies in cases like the SCO that would attack a whole community.

(where is my sig? well it can still be compared to sex, I tell you!)

Re:Bad Idea

[EQ]

I did not say the accused rapist should be denied the ability to rebut postings about him. I'm saying he can do it in his own webspace - he has no right to demand a response in my webspace. You missed the whole point of the example.

And as for applicibility, who defines what professional media is? The courts and arbitrary bureaucrats. Hardly the people to put your ability to write freely in.

"The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty." T. Jefferson, 1787

And as for crediting Marx with the free marketplace of ideas, you are misled. The concept was championed well before Marx wrote his first polemic.

Jefferson observed in his first Inaugural Address ". . . error of opinion need not and ought not be corrected by the courts where reason is left free to combat it." Thomas Jefferson's first Inaugural Address (The Complete Jefferson 385 (S. Padover ed. 1943)).

The actual phrase "open marketplae of Ideas" was coined by US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

You might want to update your knowledgebase and read up on Locke, Jefferson and a few others who predate Marx, and greatly discount anything originally attributed to Marx and Engles.

Re:Bad Idea

[Abcd1234]

Did you not consider that? Removal of the offending post is an alternative that would be pushed. Its a serious chill on free speech: People posting would have to consider whether posting a strongly worded opinion is worth the legal hassles it could generate, and if challenged, posters would have to calculate whether they have enough money and reources to fight, or if they are willing to be silenced and remove their post.

My *gawd* you are paranoid. Okay, let's go with your example. I post a scathing commentary regarding SCO's actions. According to this law, SCO could post a rebuttal on their website and then I would be obliged to link that that rebuttal. That's ALL! Beyond that, the company has absolute no right to limit what I choose to publish. What's coercive about this? After all, what's the harm in linking to their rebuttal? It doesn't cost me anything, really (other than the bandwidth to transmit the link tag over the wire... a negligable cost). So tell me again how this law could cause people to retract statements?

Re:Bad Idea

[Theaetetus]

So, you post your commentary about SCO... And then SCO doesn't post the rebuttal on their website, but instead mails it to you. You are then, under this law, required to post it on your site - if there's an alternate site, you can link, but if there is no alternate site, you have to post it.

Oh, and did I mention that the rebuttal from SCO was a 10 GB file? And one of their people will quietly have the assigned job of going on to your website to "check that it's still there" daily?

This is the obvious one I see. Nonetheless, grandparent's point wasn't corporate, but social. You post a scathing commentary on NAMBLA... You're then required to post their rebuttal? Even if a member abused you? Or even give them a forum by linking to their site? That's where this gets messed up.

-T

Re:Bad Idea

[michaelggreer]

We were both wrong, as our mutual googling shows. Holmes it is. I assure you I have read plenty of Locke and Jefferson, and your web selection of Jefferson is hardly relevant. We are not talking about censorship, but about access to speech. I believe this law would allow more access to speech, as I fear that freedom of the press is limited by those who own one. This would extend an existing law concerning print media to online media. It is not about your blog.
This is about an accused rapist (to use our example) being able to respond to accusations not only in news media (currently), but in online publications as well. Again, it is not about your blog.
Your concern that the courts are not the place to decide what is a professional media outlet is strange. The law covering print media exists, and has precedents. Surely these would cover this. If you do want like the rule of law, I am not sure what mechanism you would choose. It is not impossible to make this distinction (it is being made already) and again i do not think your blog is in danger.
As for discounting Marx and Engels, I always think it best to read things first. I am sure you agree.

Re:Bad Idea

[Sajarak]

Your concern that the courts are not the place to decide what is a professional media outlet is strange. The law covering print media exists, and has precedents. Surely these would cover this.

Feel free to correct me if my understanding of this is a little simplistic, but "professional" essentially entails that you're making money to do whatever you're doing.

So let's say someone has a blog, where they express their personal opinions. Their primary reason for keeping it is the satisfaction that they get out of having other people read their work. Sounds pretty amateur so far. What if they happen to put banner ads on their site and, by some miracle, begin to make a small profit? You could argue that at this point the whole thing becomes a professional venture, however if the blog writer was required to give subjects of their criticism the right of reply, they would almost certainly not have the resources to do this properly (verification, legal advice, etc.)

I think you'll find that if you look into it, the distinction between professional and amateur, especially when it comes to online media, isn't clear-cut at all.

Re:Bad Idea

[michaelggreer]

You could be right! There is certainly a danger there, and if everything went south it could be used by huge corporations to make dissenters work overtime printing their crap responses. But still, its better than the US libel system, which is much much more crushing at its worst (and favors those with big resources) , and this system has the benefit of forces open corp news channels to responses.
Still, there is a valid fear there. I just fear the alternative much more (since we live in it).

Re:Bad Idea

[Guppy06]

"3) Your private website is not covered by this law, only professional on-line media."

And where, praytell, is that line drawn?

"Far from chilling, this opens up free speech to those with fewer means."

But it limits what those people can say. They can only respond to criticisms made by the big media folks, which means that the big media folks are the ones who get to choose the topics of debate, and name where and when. So the "little guy" can only fight defensively.

Or he could scrounge pennies (or whatever the euro equivalent is) and buy his own printing press (metaphoricly speaking), but then he crosses that line into "media company" and must himself now pay for his opponents' responses. Which means you just effectively doubled the price of that printing press.

Re:Bad Idea

[alienw]

Stop making up bullshit strawman arguments.
A rebuttal can't possibly be a 10GB file, and the law probably has safeguards to make sure that the law is not abused. You do realize that European newspapers are subject to this as well? Have they been publishing 5,000 page rebuttals? What the hell are you smoking?

Also, I would probably link to nambla's website if I was doing an article on them anyway. That does not "give them a forum". If you are saying things about them which are blatantly wrong, I would like to see a rebuttal. If you aren't, then they are not entitled to one -- just like in a newspaper.

Re:Bad Idea

[Theaetetus]

Stop making up bullshit strawman arguments. A rebuttal can't possibly be a 10GB file, and the law probably has safeguards to make sure that the law is not abused. You do realize that European newspapers are subject to this as well? Have they been publishing 5,000 page rebuttals? What the hell are you smoking?

Hey, Mr. Can't-Read-The-Article. The proposed law had no safeguards against length. The newspapers haven't published these yet because the law is not yet law - it's only a proposal. A rebuttal can be as long as it wants - I could come up with 10 GB of data showing how stupid you are easily.

Also, I would probably link to nambla's website if I was doing an article on them anyway. That does not "give them a forum". If you are saying things about them which are blatantly wrong, I would like to see a rebuttal. If you aren't, then they are not entitled to one -- just like in a newspaper.

So, say you were abused by a NAMBLA member - not that you're doing an 'article' on them, but that you've got a blog where you mention this. Now, should you have to link to their site, or post their rebuttal on your site? (NOTE: Read the damn article before you say that you only have to link - you only have to link if THEY post the rebuttal. If they send it to you, YOU have to post it)

And newspapers only have an obligation (and there only a theoretical one) to remain impartial in news stories... Opinion columns and editorials currently require NO rebuttals.

-T

Re:Bad Idea

[JuggleGeek]

1) An accused rapist should be able to refute public accusations. Does accusation immediately condemn them? I thought we used courts for that.

So let him post his refutation on his own website.

2) This does not address statements of fact. If the rapist is convicted, stating so would not be arguable.

Not true. Anyone who is "criticized" would have right of reply, regardless of the truth/fact.

3) Your private website is not covered by this law, only professional on-line media.

El-wrongo. You didn't read the article, did you?

Bold text below is a direct clip from the article.

The all-but-final proposal draft says that Internet news organizations, individual Web sites, moderated mailing lists and even Web logs (or "blogs"), must offer a "right of reply" to those who have been criticized by a person or organization.

One Answer, one new question

[TrekkieGod]

Right from the article description:

This would mean that you would be required to post the responses as well as authenticate their origin and make the responses available for some period of time.

So the answer is they're required to verify it. My question is, who's going to get the burden of authentication? Can you get away with just not posting responses that don't include some form of authentication, or do you have to go talk with everyone who submits a response letter to find out if they're aurthentic or not? That could be a potential pain.

Re:One Answer, one new question

[arivanov]

That could be a potential pain.

Bollocks. Every european newspaper has standard terms of reply which already specify the requirements for authentication. There is no problem to require the replying side to offer a valid identity document (or a true copy of) and pay for all postage and handling (and in some countries an identity check). So once again. Bollocks.

Re:One Answer, one new question

[Alsee]

This law applies to some little girl in 4th grade who signs up for a free webpage.

The internet is not a newspaper. Everyone already has a the right to respond by putting up their own webpage.

-

Enforcement

[linuxislandsucks]

how do they plan to enforce it?

there is already case law that I do not have to follow EU concil rulings if my bsuienss is not direct with UE coutnries..casse with both EBay, Yahoo, Google and et cper German's no nazi stuff laws..

Re:Enforcement

[pair-a-noyd]

how do they plan to enforce it?

With MP5 sub-machine guns, black ski masks and battering rams..

Re:No Free Speech in Europe

[peerogue]

I think your conception of free speach needs revisiting.

Your freedom to say anything you want stops as soon as it refrains the ability of someone else to defend himself.

Don't confuse the right of free speach with the right of defamation!

Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[siskbc]

You can still say what you want, you just have to allow the entity you are talking about a chance to reply. This has been 'good practice' in any real journalism for a while. You often see in news stories companyxxx was contacted but refused to reply or gave no comment or something.

Forced speech is illegal in the US. Also, good practice in journalism isn't law - I think it's clear by now that good journalism isn't law in the US as the jails would be currently full. There has never been any obligation to say anything in the US - outside of heavily regulated media such as TV and radio, where the use of the spectrum is gained at a tradeoff. Courts here have already ruled that the internet doesn't come under such heavy consideration.

So yes, anytime someone tells you what you have to say, there's a freedom of speech issue involved. What Europe is trying to do would be illegal in the US. The US has taken a lot of heat from the international community for what we've done, but here's a case where Europeans are the ones having their rights stolen by their governments.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[luisdom]

but here's a case where Europeans are the ones having their rights stolen by their governments.
I lost the right to what? Saying things about someone without having to worry about that someone wanting to reply.
And I win one right. The right to reply even to the fsck M$
Excuse me, I prefer the latter...

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[siskbc]

the overlooked fact: everybody already has a right of reply on their own website.

Exactly. And I can get a free website from Geocities. People bitch about only the rich being able to afford press. Right - only the rich can afford blogs. Rich like 12 year old girls.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[ThaReetLad]

freedom my arse. You americans always talk about freedom like you invented it, but you just seem to get it wrong. You have the freedom to get pissed on by the person with the most money, and because you have the biggest guns, you have the freedom to piss on the rest of the world. Well listen up. Freedom is anarchy. The survival of the fittest and there is no room for compassion. Well thank you very much, but you can take your so called freedom and stick it where the sun don't shine.

This law is a good law because if a website publishes an article which says you like to abuse children, they HAVE to publish your response. Now call me old fashioned but any news source has a responsiblity born of it privilaged status and perceived authority to publish only accurate or impartial stuff. Anything which is a lie or a partial truth should be struck down. The difference in emphasis between EU and US laws is probably that the website is not free speach in and of itself, but merely a forum for free speach, in which case not publishing a response is denying the respondent their right to free speach.

BTW how is PAYING for an ad FREE speach. It just cost you the price of the ad.

I know I'm going to get modded as flamebait or troll, but hey, fuck you! Here my right to free speach and yours is to reply and call me a pinko commie EU surrender monkey, but slashdot won't refuse to post such a response, whereas many US papers would.

Do you know how difficult it is to get published in the US if big media doesn't like what you have to say? Look at Michael Moore's Stupid White Men for a great example. How is it free speech when his right to publish his book was squashed by the publishing company that had paid him to write it. Remove the plank from your own eyes America, before you start to complain about the corrupt EU press. At least our media hasn't managed to buy their own regulatory body yet.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[SamizdataIlluminatus]

You are so blind. Having the state mandate the form of debate on a fucking BLOG is freedom? ANYONE can start a blog for free, so save the bullshit about having to pay for free speech. If someone uses MY comment section, they are using bandwidth I pay for and if I want to delete their remarks, I bloody well will. Michael Moore spews a fountain of laughable and demonstrable lies only a credulous fool would believe and guess what... I do not think the state should FORCE him to allow me to post my rebuttals on HIS website. If I want to point out what a liar and blowhard he is, I can set up my own site... as indeed I have. The fact they are not just trying to make the 'powerful' (by which they mean 'not under state control') established media be subject to regulations but are trying regulate Blogs... I mean BLOGS???? You know, those things available for free from www.blogger.com, shows that only a complete half-wit would think this has ANYTHING to do with FAIRNESS. No, it is about smothering independent and dissenting voices and bringing POLITICS (which means the use of the collective means of coercion) into a purely SOCIAL medium. Our largely UK based blog will simply not comply with this attempt by the superstate to intermediate itself into our free speech on our private property (the server space we rent). Message to the EU: drop dead.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[ThaReetLad]

I never said it was freedom, what I said was freedom is overrated, and I will NOT defend your so called right to spread lies and misinformation and generally ignorant shit. Blogs are the greatest curse of the last few years. What makes you think that anyone is interested in your self promoting opinionated WRONG shit? I'd like to see you try and ignore EU law, just to see you're ass in court. What is wrong with blogs at the moment is that there is no accountability, no context, no comeback. You could say Hitler was a misunderstood genius, and some poor gulible fool would believe you. How is it smothering independent voices when all that happens is that an opposing view speaks up with the right to be heard? Afraid someone will prove you wrong? What if the BBC or News international started an online media campaign to get blogs made illegal, wouldn't you like the right to have you voice heard? I don't think that freedom of speach does equal freedom. I think that the right to be heard equals freedom, and you in your terror of being made to look stupid don't want to hear that. Do you know why American TV news is so bad? It's because they can only tell people what they want to hear, rather that what they need to hear, or they'll lose audience and ad revenue. THAT is what you precious freedom of the press has got you! I just hope you choke on it!!

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[SamizdataIlluminatus]

As it happens, ignoring the EU laws on this will be extremely easy to do, which will drive Troskyists like you mad with fury. We have the technology :-). Tough shit

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[rossz]

what I said was freedom is overrated

And there is where you are wrong. Freedom is not overrated. Freedom is the single most important thing you could strive for. The only people who say freedom is overrated are fascists and despots.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[Dean Sas]

that assumes you're rich enough to have 'net access. Many eastern europeans in particular find it hard to get affordable access.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[ThaReetLad]

Freedom IS overrated. Freedom is NOT the single most important thing to strive for. Happiness is. What is more important is being able to have a roof over your head, food on the table, a safe environment in which to bring up your kids and having a happy fulfilled life. It is possible to have all these things and not be free in your sense of the word, but I accept that a sense of freedom is important. However if you think you are really free I suggest you think again. You may have some constitutionally protected rights, but what use are they if you are unable to excerise them? At some level you are limited in what you can do either by law or by situation around you, but it is only when these limitations start to infringe on your life that the problem arises. Did you know that I have the right as an EU citizen enshrined in the EU convention on human rights, not to be executed? A right that no american has. How can you when some states still have the death penalty?

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[Eric E. Coe]

You are so lost. Such a loser. You will make a good drone in the European collective. Have a nice life.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[ThaReetLad]

I'd rather be a drone than a corporate whore.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[ThaReetLad]

Here is a link to broaden you mind a little bit. A balanced discussion between two American political thinkers, both of whome agree that the European model is actually pretty good on the whole.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[cREW oNE]

It's just that if you happen to be a professional news media on the internet, then the law that was alreay in place for print media, also applies to you. Really, nothing new for EU countries. No rights are being stolen, violated, etc. This law has been in place and doing it's work happily for decades in the EU, and I fail to see why it would cause problems on the net.

It's really amazing that a lot of posts here try to attack the EU version of free speech, while I think that a lot of (European) people would argue that the EU version is a lot better than the US version. Oh well.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[ces]

Perhaps it is just my American POV, but I feel the solution to crap like the KKK or neo-Nazis spew is more speech.

In general the American experience has been that if you let the whackos have their soapbox they will usually hang themselves with their own words in short order. That a few might agree with them and feel what they are saying is "right" is something you have to be willing to accept. However I doubt this sort would think much differently even if the "right of reply" was forced on the publications they choose to read. So called gulible fools aren't going to be helped by forcing people to provide a forum to those who disagree with them.

Oddly enough you seem to fail to recognise that like the US the UK does not impose a "right of reply" on print publications. Oddly enough it would seem that the UK has the freest press in Europe and the most diversity of opinion in mainstream publications. I fail to see why the web should be treated any different than print. If I want to rebut CNN I can very well do so on my own blog.

One thing that many fail to realize is that freedom of the press and freedom of speech also mean the right to ignore things you don't want to listen to. Just because you feel what you have to say is valid it doesn't mean you have any right to make others pay attention to you. Just because I happen to have a popular soapbox why should I be under any obligation to lend it to you?

You claim blogs have no accountablity, I would have to dissagree. Anyone who is at all popular risks other bloggers "fact checking his ass" or "fisking" him if he is spreading untruths. If anything there is more accountablity in the blog community than in the traditional press. Totaly random everyday folks have been able to become very widely read bloggers. You have a diversity of voices: instapundit, samizdata, indymedia, lieks, drudge etc. There really is no barrier to publication on the web other than making others pay attention to you.

As to EU law, as an American I will quite happily ignore it. If I and other Americans have to start worring about being arrested or dragged into court when we travel to Europe for violating EU law on the Internet I think you can kiss US tourist dollars goodbye.

In short I think you are an elitist prick who believes in freedom of speech and the press only if it is just the "right sort" of folks who have that freedom. Well fuck off, we in the US will keep our First Amendment, thank you very much.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[ces]

Freedom is NOT the single most important thing to strive for. Happiness is. What is more important is being able to have a roof over your head, food on the table, a safe environment in which to bring up your kids and having a happy fulfilled life.

So you'd prefer Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia then? Lovely. We save you European idiots from the facists and the communists and what do you do the first chance you get? Go ahead and impose a totalitarian utopian state on yourselves. Fine then, I hope it is as much a failure as the last few utopian states that have come along.

Sort of ironic that the US seems to remain one of the few holdouts who still believe in that quaint Enlightenment notion of Liberal Democracy. Thankfully we have built these principles into the very foundations of our institutions. Is it perfect? No. But I think we get it right more than we get it wrong. The "American Experiment" is still going strong after 200 years.

Re:Forced speech denies freedom of speech

[ThaReetLad]

Going strong huh? First up you don't actually HAVE a democracy, you have a Republic. Secondly, how can any two party political system really be representative and answerable to the electorate. Thirdly, RIAA, MPAA, NRA, BSA, etc. All massive lobbying groups who's sole job is to try to influence and coopt the very people you elect to protect your way of life into passing laws to restrict your freedoms. Fourth, PATRIOT I and II, DMCA, TIA, HR-2517.

Face facts, your "American Experiment" has been totally defeated and taken over by your large corporations. They have turned you from citizens into consumers. They own your politicians, they write your laws, they tell you what to think, how to live, what to wear. They tell you that their brand is a lifestyle choice that will project a positive image to your friends, and you lap it up. You are their bitch, and best of all, you like it.

And what's with your love of your flag? It like your version of Mao's little red book. A TV program last year took some groups of tourists and did stuff to them to see how different nationalities would react, so they decided to accidentely burn that nations flag. Most of the groups were a little annoyed, felt it to be rude, except for 2. We brits didn't notice, and the American tourist were furious and had to take the flag home for a proper burial. That kind of fanatisism is just bizare, and shows that you have a blind spot for your countries faults. You say "God bless the USA, it's the greatest nation in the world, well at least it's better than most, well there's more right than wrong". Don't you see, while you are prepared to live with its faults they will continue to worsten. While you're busy waving your flags and looking the other ways your nation is rotting to the core.

Re:No Free Speech in Europe

[CaptainZapp]

All the Eurocrats are doing now is covering the same censorship in salad dressing in hopes of making it more appealing and more tasty, but underneath it's the same old censorship.

Yeah, I think about this when smoking a dooby in parallel with quaffing a beer in public.

I will give it even more thought when I do some skinny dipping in the lake.

But then again: Maybe not...

No Need

[Nakoruru]

There is no need for a right of reply on the internet. When anyone can get a site and post their own response to anything that is said about them on the net, why do they need to use my site?

Re:No Free Speech in Europe

[Bert Peers]

(Don't feed trolls, etc, but the blurb talks about "chilling" too, so...)

Please explain how making sure that you get a chance to respond to any unfair, incomplete or in your eyes otherwise faulty publication, in a way that guarantees the response will be read by the public originally subject to the wrong-saying, stiffles free speech ?

As others have said, this also is a fairly good thing if you are the poster, not the subject : if anyone disagrees with what I say, the fact that I (am forced to) offer them a forum to respond kindof takes the wind out of their sails to hammer me with baseless libel threats.

M$

[kjba]

Does this mean we will get M$ commenting on every /. post concerning them?

Re:No Free Speech in Europe

[caparra]

Giving someone the right to reply to something is endorsing free speech, in my opinion. It doesnt forbid anyone to say anything.

The limits to Free Speech...

[RandyF]

Freedom of Speech means no interference unless the speech amounts to libel. Forcing "the press", which includes anyone able to post publically, to post rebutals is the flip side of censorship.

The very reason that the original opinion was posted may be because the speaker considers the target's opinion to be damaging or harmful. Allowing such a law opens the door for the curtailing of many freedoms, including the freedom of religion.

Whether you agree or not, a religeous organization has the right to speak out against activities that it views as bad from their own pulpits without the government forcing access to that same pulpit to the opposition. For instance, imagine the outcome if the government forced a mosque to allow a Jew to respond to Islamic accusations made in that mosque.

A newspaper, radio show, web log, or other online site should have the equivalent respect. The site belongs to the owner. They should be able to post what they want, without intervention, as long as it does not spread intentional lies about someone or state secrets that pose a national threat. These types of things are handled via damages through the courts, not via censorship legislation.

As long as the public is free to access the opinion of the oposing side, there should be no such law.

'nuff said...

Re:The limits to Free Speech...

[sebmol]

Whether you agree or not, a religeous organization has the right to speak out against activities that it views as bad from their own pulpits without the government forcing access to that same pulpit to the opposition. For instance, imagine the outcome if the government forced a mosque to allow a Jew to respond to Islamic accusations made in that mosque.

That is correct and good that way.

A newspaper, radio show, web log, or other online site should have the equivalent respect.

That is not. Religious organizations enjoy special rights that no other organization has. In particular, religions are mostly free from governmental influence. They are still subject to the same constitutional rules as everybody else, but they can mostly do what they want. The print and broadcast media does not have that freedom. This is partially because both print and broadcast media publish to an anonymous, potentially unlimited audience. Those people in the houses of worship are there because they choose to do so. The priests/ministers/rabbis/etc. know who they are talking to and they know that most of those that they are talking to will be in agreement with them. Print and broadcast media are appealing to the general population and as such will have to follow stricter rules than those catering to a specific and exclusive subset of the general population.

Re:The limits to Free Speech...

[lovebyte]

This is a proposed law about FACTS not opinions. RTFA!

question

[mirko]

suppose, as a good /.er, I post a story in which I tell how much SCO sucks.
They force me to publish a reply : "no we don't, but linux sucks !"
Do I also have to publish Linux people's answers to my home page or has it to be published on SCO's site ?
I'd be happy if this could lead to many famous people barking at each other from my blog :)

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

[SubliminalLove]

What's up with this at the tail end of an otherwise relatively well-written essay?

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

Item 1: Of course they don't have the First Amendment. They don't have the Declaration of Independance or the Proclamation of Emancipation, either; the First Amendment is part of the American constitution. This intentionally emotion-provoking phrase intends to say "they don't have freedom of speech", which may be true in limited ways (I understand, for example, that Nazi references are regulated in Germany), but I've never heard of extreme censorship in Europe. Am I wrong? Is Europe secretly a band of neo-nazi fascist authoritarians? My bad...

Item 2: No respect for private property. Really? This reads like a third-grader's "your momma's so fat" joke; it seems like it's just there to try to make Europe seem bad, without any justifying context. Again, am I wrong? Did Europe turn Commie when I wasn't looking? I hate it when they do that...

Item 3: Free enterprise is disrespected by Europe too? Okay, I don't actually know anything about Europe on this one. If we let Microsoft to continue to operate a monopoly, let the RIAA run the music industry as an oligarchy, and let the oil industry run the government (all of which practices are extremely discouraging to "free enterprise" in that competition is made more difficult), we don't get to bitch about Europe.

Item 4: "... that America still enjoys". With the implication that in pursuit of respect for Free Speech, Respect For Small Government, and Respect For Free Enterprise, America is the shining star that all other nations should look to for inspiration. Get real; the states aren't any better at any of this than their peers in democracy. College kids don't get their life-savings yanked for producing search engines in free-speech respecting nations. America rocks; it's my favorite country by far. But don't go trying to make it sound like it's got all the problems licked, and if the rest of the world would just look at what we're doing over here...

Stop trying to cram pro-American sentimentalities down our throat. There were two pages of informative and interesting writing before that line, why'd you have to ruin it by trying to make America the moral of the story?

Sheesh...

Google pagerank?

[241comp]

Ok, the problem I see with this is that it can potentially be abused by an organization. Take this example:

1. Make a cheap/crappy "widget" and give it away free to be reviewed by hundreds or thousands of popular websites. Make it so bad they can't help but review it.
2. Require a hyperlink to your website by those websites because of your right-to-reply. Your reply is simply an advertisement for the product.
3. PageRank on Google climbs so you are the #1 result when searching for "widget".
4. ??? (sit back and watch the orders roll in)
5. Profit

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[starcraftsicko]

It's nothing more than is required for other editorialised publications

Editorialized publications are not required to publish responses, at least not in the USA, though most do some of that via letters to the editor and the like. Many only publish excerpts of such responses. In the USA, requiring that the press publish anything is constitutionally difficult.

But whereas editorialized publications typically have a staff to manage such things, my blog only has me. I don't have time to read all of my hate mail, and I lack the inclination to post it for the world to see. If I blog about spammers in general, I certainly wouldn't appreciate having to post every piece of spam I recieve afterward.

More to the point, since I don't advertise, I have to pay for the bandwidth out of pocket.

Why should I have to pay to post your ill considered opinions in addition to my own?

What this law does is raise the financial threshold (both in terms of time and money required, where time = money) a person must reach to be able to freely put their thoughts, experiences, etc., on the internet.

Authentication?

[YrWrstNtmr]

This would mean that you would be required to post the responses as well as authenticate their origin

So i would have to verify who a response actually comes from? And how, pray tell?

1. Criticise someone ("Jaque Chirac sucks!"
2. receive numerous responses rebutting ("No, I don't", "No he doesn't")
3. Now I have to weed through all of these, and figure out which one came from the actual person/entity criticised in #1.
4. Provide link to same
5. Wash, rinse, repeat
6. Declare bankruptcy, because I spent all of my time complying with this stupid law and lost my job.

Re:No Free Speech in Europe

[dago]

" If anything, this just goes to show that Europe does not endorse the right of free speech."

Don't forget that, ultimately, this is the europeans which choose that their freedom has to be limited. Even Switzerland, with its direct democray, has undisputed* speech restriction law.

(* meaning undisputed by a vast majority of the people)

There's a (wide, IMHO) gap from censoring communications and having laws with allow the justice to sanction people promoting race discrimination.

WTF?

[Vajsvarana]

Please, RTFA and try to understand what the Council of Europe's proposition really is without getting trapped by Declan McCullagh pure trolling!
This is the point:
IF you criticize someone on your website AND IF this someone wants to reply to your criticism THEN you must give space to his reply.

This not only makes pure sense, but it's the obvious base for whatever notion of "freedom of speech".

If whichever John Smith in your blog insulted you and you want to reply, well this proposition says John must give space to your reply. God, what a european non-sense, uh?

Right of Response to All Advertisements

[RichMan]

If they are going to do this I want the right of response to all advertisement claims. Lets see how quick the whole thing gets dropped with this amendment.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[surelars]

Actually, this could be pretty interesting. It's difficult to predict what the effects of something like this could be. However, if this recommendation is implemented in the EU countries, it certainly will have an effect on things like online newspapers, magazines, etc.

We may fear that it will only mean that every single news story will have a link to a boring press release from the politician/company/government entity in question. However, it may effect a deeper change in online news media towards something more oriented towards dialogue than towards the pure distribution that is common now.

This could be interesting to watch - another little step in this collective experiement that is the internet.

Of course, all this favours again the big entities who have the resources to Kibose the world and reply to everything - even though Google should help the rest of us should we want to do the same thing.

/Lars

YOU FAIL IT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for you, this is not the first post! You are a pathetic FAILURE!

YOU FAIL IT!

In compliance with the EU Right of Reply Directive, you are granted the right to offer a counter-version or reply. Please click on the "Reply to This" hyperlink. Your counter-version or reply will be made available thru a clearly visible hyperlink which will be attached to this post.

What if I don't use a "system" at all?

[TWX]

"For weblogs, that is simple. Use a system that allows user comments."

What if I edit the text file containing my weblog information by hand? What if I manually type all of the <hr>, <i>, and <blockquote> tags by hand, to get the exact formatting that I want? Can I require that the replier submit their reply in a format that matches my existing site? Can I even stop them from sending me a MS-Word format doc, which I cannot open?

Weblogs are so bloody simple that it can all be done by hand, without any backend scripting, if one is patient enough to develop something initially and stick to it. I've been using my weblog format for more than two years, and it works quite well for my purposes. I'm sure that others don't like the lack of linkable comments until I recently added it, and the lack of interactive search capability, but it's my weblog, and if I want it to be based in stone-age HTML so it loads fast, I will.

So, if anyone wants to send a rebuttal to me, they can type it with my HTML formatting style.

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

Re:Slight exaggerations..

[luisdom]

in the article...

It's pretty zany to imagine that just about every form of online publishing, from full-time news organizations to occasional bloggers to moderated chat rooms, would be covered. But it's no accident. A January 2003 draft envisioned regulating only "professional on-line media." Two months later, a March 2003 draft dropped the word "professional" and intentionally covered all "online media" of any type.

Re:Slight exaggerations..

[interJ]

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.

Nonsense

[haraldm]

We've had a right of reply in the printed press for years, and it definitely did not chill down the work of the press. In how far would the so-called "freedom of speech" be affected? D'oh.

You know... I like the idea.

[Randolpho]

Having read the article and digested the meaning, I have to say I like the idea.

Many people here are taking the stance that the article writer has: Bad Idea(tm). Most seem concerned that this will somehow hamper free speech.

I call bullshit. This will *foster* free speech. Let's be honest; how many of us have gone to blogs or forums where the prevalent opinion is different from our own and been shouted down, had our posts edited or deleted? Apparently not many of you. Well, I have. Almost always it's "It's my site, you'll play by my rules. If I don't like what you have to say, tough shit, you're deleted." Forcing the issue legally allows discussion to take place. Without a right to reply, you merely have one person/group spewing whatever they wish without a dissenting voice.

To deny a right to reply is what will really hamper free speech.

Don't believe me? Well then, don't reply; you don't have the right. ;)

Re:You know... I like the idea.

[Justin Cave]

There are certain sites that exist solely so that people of a particular political bent can discuss issues with other like-minded people. Reason and CommonDreams, for example, exist to highlight issues and arguments important to libertarians and liberals respectively. Forcing either to carry rebuttals from every group that feels put upon by their articles and/or editorials would be an onerous burden if for no other reason than their sites could be clogged with links to rebuttals, leaving little room for their own content.

Forcing a site to carry a rebuttal also infringes upon the right of free assosciation of the members of the site. If a bunch of conservatives want to get together to discuss tax policy, they have every right to do so free from interference of liberals. If a bunch of environmentalists want to get together to plot strategy for going after power company pollution, they ought to be able to do so without providing a forum for power companies to argue the issue.

Imagine what would have happened had this sort of requirement been in effect for Martin Luther King's march on Washington. Would you want Governor Wallace, Senator Thurmond, etc. to have been allowed to rebut the "I Have a Dream" speech?

Re:You know... I like the idea.

[Randolpho]

Er... perhaps you miss the point of the law. It's about *public* communication. If you're publishing, i.e. making public, your media wherein you are attacking another, but denying that person the right to refute your statements, you are essentially denying that person's right to speech. If you want association and communication with "like-minded individuals" without worry about opposing viewpoints, make the association private. Private communication is not affected by this law if I read the article correctly.

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.

Re:America seems really terrible...

[GMontag]

Europeans seem every bit as knowledgable of their various beurocracies and psuedo-government agencies as Americans know of parallel orgs here:
quote is on NRO

âoeMany Europeans know so little about the EU that the convention's debates would mean nothing to them. A poll taken for Britain's Foreign Office in 2001 discovered that a quarter of Britons did not know that their country was actually a member of the European Union, and 7% thought that the United States was in it. In Germany, a founder member of the Union whose serious papers devote acres of space to EU affairs, another recent poll found that 31% of the public had never heard of the European Commission, the EU's most important institution.â

Sorry for the second-hand refrence. It is from The Economist and I do not have a subscription :( More of Andrew Stuttaford's comments on the article here.

Punishing the technically-declined?

[TrollBridge]

I may be stretching things a bit here, but if some Joe Schmoe in London wants to put up a site that criticizes Tony Blair (imagine that!) but does not have the technical knowledge to add a blog-like 'Post Reply" mechanism, will his site be pulled?

This sounds like a way to kick anyone with an opinion who lacks sufficient technical knowledge from expressing themselves.

What about cross boarder?

[fudgefactor7]

We all remember when France sued Yahoo! to get them to stop allowing material that was not "acceptible" to the French, even though the Yahoo! servers are here in America; so with that in mind could this law be used to force the "right of reply" on blog-servers here in the good ol' USA?

Re:What about cross boarder?

[lovebyte]

You are very misinformed.
1. "France" did not sue Yahoo! Two not-for-profit organisations in France sued Yahoo!
2. French law makes it illegal for French residents to buy/get Nazi memorabilia except for research purposes. Thus the law made it illegal for Yahoo! to send to France any such items.
Yahoo! could still send nazi uniforms to S&M shops in the US.

What about..

[Anti Frozt]

... if I posted a link to a response located in /dev/null ? Does that conform with the letter of the law?

Read the article

[nuggz]

I'm not from Europe, but from the article there already is a right of reply law.
These laws did exist in the US, but don't anymore.

I think this is a generally a good thing, and quite polite.
The problem is it may be open to abuses, which could be solved simply by linking to the persons web site with the post about them, if they care enough to respond they can do it there.

Already fact in Germany

[aspargillus]

Actually, in Germany internet publications are probably already covered by current laws. It's called Gegendarstellung. (That's not a federal issue, though, and I haven't checked all laws for single states. If you feel inclined to do so, have a look here)

BTW, if you make sure your claims of facts are valid in the first place, you won't run into trouble.

Re:Already fact in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends. The right of reply is limited to periodically updated journalistic and editorial publications. See here and here.

Links you don't want

[YrWrstNtmr]

Say you run a 'family-oriented', church based blog or website. No rude language, etc (Think of the children!)
In the process, you 'criticise' online porn, and name one of the most blatant purveyors specifically. He then drafts up a rebuttal, and posts it on his website, informing you of the URL.

Is the church website then required to provide a link to his porn website under this (proposed) law?

Business opportunity

[streepje]

Here's your chance. Set up a rebuttals website.
Say http://www.rebuttals.eu

Now, if I say something about the Acme Widget company that they don't like, I can put their rebuttal on http://www.rebuttals.eu with a link to it from my site. It's win-win-win. Acme gets their rebuttal, I save on bandwidth, and www.rebuttals.eu can surround the rebuttal with advertising for Acme or even any other Widget company.

Now the big question is, how do I patent this business model?

No way to enforce

[scsirob]

This is yet another example of our illustrious political bodies dreaming up rules and regulations from behind their desk.

Even if such a rule would become law, there is *no way* they can enforce it. I mean, if company funded orgs like the BSA can't stop copying of software, then how on earth will a publicly funded (== always short on cash) organisation do this Europe-wide? It's a paper tiger.

Re:No way to enforce

[Sloshed_dot]

It is very easy to enforce:
If I find my name published on a page, I sue them.

Re:avoid traffic problems; article text

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe huh,
how come we never refer to americans/mexicans/candaians/etc as a single entity - yet americans refer to europe.

uk != europe
Germany != europe
France != europe
etc etc etc

Different Laws, freedoms, rights.
G

I don't think you do.

[goldspider]

"For example you will be in hellish hot water as a paper when you just print accusations without even giving the accused so much as a chance to answer to those allegations."

Where did you hear that one? Ever read the Enquirer?

Re:I don't think you do.

[Abcd1234]

Where did you hear that one? Ever read the Enquirer?

Umm, given the poster's reference to Germany, one can only assume he/she is located somewhere in Europe where the concept of "right to respond" is fairly common and exists as he/she described.

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

[Ngwenya]

Item 1: Of course they don't have the First Amendment. They don't have the Declaration of Independance or the Proclamation of Emancipation, either; the First Amendment is part of the American constitution. This intentionally emotion-provoking phrase intends to say "they don't have freedom of speech", which may be true in limited ways (I understand, for example, that Nazi references are regulated in Germany), but I've never heard of extreme censorship in Europe. Am I wrong? Is Europe secretly a band of neo-nazi fascist authoritarians? My bad...

Well said. Most of the EU member states have enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into law. Article 10 of this convention sets out the right to free expression (although qualified in section 2 to include responsibilities).

Your well thought out expression gives me some confort that not all Americans subscribe to the foolishly jingoistic notion that the American construction of liberty is the only valid one.

As a European, I rarely feel myself groaning under the oppressive weight of our democracies, nor do I feel the oxygen of liberty suddenly fill my lungs during my many visits to the USA. It's perfectly possible (indeed admirable) to take pride in your country and culture without sneering at the achievements of others, whose efforts and results may reflect a history of which one is not aware.

--Ng

Goodbye

[krumms]

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).

Bit strange... any definitions as to how specific you would have to be before this took effect? e.g. if I called 'programmers of operating systems' - now, note how vague the term is - if I called them something mean like 'wankers', am I then expected to post responses from - say - Microsoft, even though I wasn't referring directly to them?

The analogy is shocking, I know, but I hope it conveys my point.

Which is probably wrong.

Anyway ...

It's not the end of the world....

[xA40D]

What's the problem?

Giving pepole the right to reply to published opinion strikes me as prefectly fair. And this bit:

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

Looks like it'll provide an interesting get-out to stop flippant responses. If you need to authenticate, insist on PGP signed email.... But demand the PGP public-key is sent via registered snail-mail on a CD. Better yet, insist on an SAE too to allow some form of return address validation.

With a bit of effort anyone could come-up with a way to make validation really irksome, and therefore not something to be undertaken litely.

A tool against vendor sponsored propaganda

[skurken]

Even though I find the proposal a bit odd, I can't really see it as something that limits free speach. You can still say anything you like.

I'm not sure how this would help the large company much, they usually have their own media machine where they can publish anything they want. It does however give the small person or company a chance to refute slander published by larger companies.

Really, wouldn't it be nice to have Microsoft publish answers to some of their silly statements about Linux companies on Microsoft's own site?

If anything, this is pro-free-discussion.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Blondie-Wan]

Even if it's just somebody posting an opinion in a privately-run, one-person blog? If I have a site devoted solely to posting my opinion on various things, why should I have to put the speech of somebody I criticized on it? Yes, it'd be good of me to do so, but why should I be forced to? If you criticized someone a few times in casual conversation, should you be obligated to then recite that person's side of the story in subsequent conversations?

What about the stipulation that the response must be made available for a period of time at least equal to the duration of the original criticism and at least 24 hours? If you have a blog and one day decide you just don't want to maintain it any more (or can't afford the fees associated with hosting, or whatever) and decide to take it down, should you then be required to keep the site running an additional period of time just to be sure the response is available for the same length of time as your original comment or longer?

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[seichert]

No freedom of speach issues here.

This is a freedom of press issue. A law that requires a newspaper, web site, or radio program to provide a forum for anyone whom they criticize infringes on their rights to publish a newspaper, web site, or radio program as they see fit. The freedom of press guarantees that I can report on anything I want, publish it in any manner I see fit, and completely ignore anyone else's point of view. They , of course, are free to do the same.

I was worried...

[legerde]

Im starting to get older and I've started feeling like my country (USA) was falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to policies on things like intellectual property, litigation, copyrights, patents, and legislation. But, now I reallize that the USA is again leading. Thank you EU for showing me that American legislation is just as stupid as the rest of the world.

Re:I was worried...

[DrVxD]

You never had cause to worry - American politicians are easily as stupid as everyone elses (which is quite an achievement, when you think about it ;))

I can see it now...

[HopeUnknown]

-----Original Message-----
From: ballmerd00d@hotmail.com
To: webmaster@cnn.com
Subject: Re: Your article on Microsoft vs. Linux

M$ oWnZ LiNuX!!! Post these comments or I hAx0r j00 and tell the European Council!

Steve-o Ballmer
L33t d00d

Won't this help prosecute spammers?

[Death Owl]

I suspect the motive behind this legislation is to allow spammers to be prosecuted. Europeans (encouraged by the press) are currently outraged at spammers sending hardcore porn to their children. Most of these spam e-mails do not have a valid return e-mail address. If its illegal to send out mail without a valid reply-to address, it would help combat spam (at least spam originating in Europe.) That has to be a good thing.

Re:Won't this help prosecute spammers?

[geekoid]

how would it combat spam? if the return address is false, how do you know who sent it?

Do you go after the cmpany that sellsproduct someone is advertising? if so, expect to get a lot of spam from 'Microsoft'.

Re:Won't this help prosecute spammers?

[Guppy06]

"Europeans (encouraged by the press) are currently outraged at spammers sending hardcore porn to their children."

Where are the spammers' replies in said press?

Good news!

[Sloshed_dot]

Actually, with the freedom of expression comes the obligation not to publish names of people without their consent.
*I* think this is a brilliant plan, and it is shocking that nothing has been done until now. The proposal prevents publication of false rumors that may harm individuals - something that is unthinkable in any other type of publication medium (except the Weekly World News).

Bill Gates

[clonebarkins]

Bill Gates can already sign on to /. and say whatever he wants. Why make a law?

Websites are not necessarily public forums...

[RTMFD]

I shouldn't have to incur the financial penalty of having to host the "other side's" argument. Let them get _their own_ site and publish _their own_ material. That sounds a little more fair to me. With the barrier to entry as low as it is on the internet, there's no reason why others should be allowed to legally vandalize my site with their dissenting opinions.

First the mandatory collection of VAT and now this. I guess it is time to set up an US to setup an EU IP ban on our web servers.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[banzai51]

Seems ok until you consider the effect on an individual's website. The true power of the web is that anyone can publish thier thoughts. Imagine you critize a company that you had a bad experience with on your personal website. Imagine them shutting you down because you didn't allow them to counter. Or, you allow them to reply, but they then create a reply that voilates your bandwidth TOS. Either way you're off the net. Your single voice will be stifled.

Good, freedom of speech at last...

[basingwerk]

I disagree with you, and I am telling you so. That is what this law would allow everyone to do. If it were face to face, or a phone call, our discussion would be private. But if you go on the Internet, and make it public, then I should (and will) have the right to reply in public, in the same way (so that it is intelligible). I don't see your point - do you want to say bad things about people, and for them to have no right to rebutt your comments? What is distressing about giving people freedom to give thier point of view?

Re:Good, freedom of speech at last...

[TopShelf]

The only thing distressing about it is that they already have every opportunity to reply in public forums. Why should I have to provide the resources to accept the reply, verify that it actually came from the offended party, and post it on my site?

It's a big Internet, folks, there's more than enough room out there...

Re:Good, freedom of speech at last...

[basingwerk]

But the reply in the public forum is not linked to the original, so how will the public find it? I don't understand - they require that the reply is linked, and your suggestion does not do that. You have to accept the reply, verify it and post it on your site because that is where the contentious comment appears. I don't see how the right of rebuttal (otherise known as freedom of speech) could work in any other way. That is why parliament (or whatever you have) meets together, discusses things in one place, and publishes an account. You are asking for the right to make open loop public announcements without taking responsibility for them. That's like slandering someone in the street - it's not on, and you can expect an argument. That's what this law allows - people can argue back and take away some power from the 'WebMasters'.

Re:Good, freedom of speech at last...

[FeloniousPunk]

I disagree with you, and I am telling you so. That is what this law would allow everyone to do. If it were face to face, or a phone call, our discussion would be private. But if you go on the Internet, and make it public, then I should (and will) have the right to reply in public, in the same way (so that it is intelligible). I don't see your point - do you want to say bad things about people, and for them to have no right to rebutt your comments? What is distressing about giving people freedom to give thier point of view?
What's distressing? I'm distressed because they've always had their point of view in the first place and thus there is no reason for this law. Nothing is preventing you from starting your own web page or blog to make your point of view known. You have exactly as much freedom of speech to make your views known as the fellow who said something unkind about you on the Internet.
That's what leaves me scratching my head - do you really think that you're being deprived of your freedom of speech just because you can't reply on his own venue? If anyone's freedom of speech is being curtailed, it's the person making the original statement - now he is no longer to free to say what he pleases, he is compelled by law with the armed might of the state backing it up to include another's remarks in his own.
So typisch Europaisch...

Re:Good, freedom of speech at last...

[junkgrep]

But the reply in the public forum is not linked to the original, so how will the public find it?

For goodness sakes: finding information the responsibility OF the reading public. THEY are the ones who seek out the materials and views they want. If they want to seek out contrary views, then they should do it. But it's no one's legal or moral responsibility to do it for them.

Re:Good, freedom of speech at last...

[Alsee]

people can argue back and take away some power from the 'WebMasters'.

Ahh yes, the evil and powerful 'WebMaster' who happens to be a 10 year old girl posting a blog.

The internet is not a newspaper. If a newspaper says something you are generally incapable of answering on your own. That is a signifigant imbalance of power.

Anyone can walk into a library and get a free website/blog of their own.

-

Re:Good, freedom of speech at last...

[basingwerk]

Many users no more 'seek out the materials' than a person who turns on the television and watches the news. As you do when you 'watch' news rolling into slashdot. In any case, the law will not make you take legal or moral responsibility to present contrary views. It will compel you to allow others to post or link thier views on your site. As I am doing now. Slashdot is a great example of this principle at work. Why should you have the right to make public, contentious comments on your site and yet withhold the same right from the other stakeholders?

Re:Good, freedom of speech at last...

[basingwerk]

I don't understand this yet. I agree that newspapers are immutable - once printed, you can't offer a reply in that version. Sometimes, rarely, you may get a letter printed, or an apology even. The good thing about the web is that it is possible to add a postscript to an article later. That removes a significant imbalance of power. That is why this law is good. The downside is the hassle of making the reply facility work properly. I expect enterprising software engineers can solve that; slashdot have already made the right to reply a standard feature on their site. Another downside is that trolls will reply to any old rubbish they see and cause trouble. I don't know the answer to that one. Maybe that's the price of freedom.

Re:Good, freedom of speech at last...

[Alsee]

I'm not sure, but maybe you missunderstood what I meant about 'imbalance of power'? I meant that newspapers have a powerful voice that most people have no access to. If a newspaper says something about you, you are generally incapable of equivalent speech unless you happen to own a newspaper.

This makes newspapers an advantaged, or priviledged class of speaker. "Right to reply" places a minor burden on the one with the advantage in order to give a voice to the disadvantaged.

On the internet everyone has a global voice. There is no need to burden one person in order for another to be able to speak.

-

Suggestion to those in the EU...

[RandyF]

In the US, we almost take for granted the rights that have been recognized in the our constitution. I say "recognized" because they refer to a "law" higher than that of any man's government, constitution, treaty, or law. Having these rights spelled out in the constitution has protected the rights, safety, and property many people through the years.

Unfortunately, the source for those God given rights, has been ignored. This will cause a slide away from stable "rights mandated by God" to sliding "rights allowed by the government or a fickle society."

My suggestion is this:

• First, study your history. It is rich with the very religeous and political thought upon which we based our "Bill of Rights".
• Second, study the US Constitution, its history, its slide into decay, and the increasing difficulty that we are having relying on it for protection.
• Third, force these basic, and some that were missed, into your new constitution.
• Fourth, fight like hell to keep your rights!
• Last, Teach you children these rights, their basis, and to continue the fight so that their children will not become slaves to some dictator or "social order" that places the state over the individual.

Make no mistake, maintaining or obtaining freedom is a constant fight and many, many, many have literaly laid down their lives to keep it. Don't forget the last two world wars. Any great society that has grown complacent in their vigilance for freedom has crumbled. Most have done so in a very short amount of time.

'nuff said...

Re:Private property rights.

[sebmol]

You are responsible for what you say. Sometimes, what you say has consequences that might not be in *your* best interest but definitely in the interest of other people, namely those you were talking about. This just means that before you say something, you do some research before you splurt it out.

All rights have limitations. Even the right to own property or free speech.

Logistic DoS attack.

[pjwalen]

Is this REALLY practical with the ability to forge a from field in email? God forbid I pretend to be bill@microsoft.com to all his critics causing them to validate hundreds of thousands of email, which aren't ACTUALLY from him.

I think you're missing the point

[tanguyr]

Under this law a publication by a large software company critical of open source/free software has to allow a response and has to publish it.

Let's put this in perspective: What's to stop Microsoft(tm)(c)(r) from posting right here on /. (no points for answering "the moderation system") - but how often does /. get to post on the MS site?

/t

Re:I think you're missing the point

[PhxBlue]

Let's put this in perspective: What's to stop Microsoft(tm)(c)(r) from posting right here on /. (no points for answering "the moderation system")

What stops them from posting right here right now?

but how often does /. get to post on the MS site?

How often does Microsoft make comments that are critical of Slashdot?

Re:I think you're missing the point

[glenstar]

You make a good point. MS never says (explicitely): "Linux sucks" , while on Slashdot we see more than our share of "M$ SUX!"... you will notice that the phrase is all the more scathing due to the use of the dollar sign in "MS". God forbid a goddamn public company make money! And, the use of the spelling challenged "SUX" goes a very long way towards affirming the poster's intellectual level.

Yeah, MS has pulled some pretty ugly things, been bitchslapped by the Justice Department, and been generally sleazy in dealing with OEMs, but I challenge you to name one 100+ million a year company that can't be accused of the same. I'm not condoning MS... far from it, but these things are unfortunately par for the course with *big* business.

This is what happens...

[mofochickamo]

...when you give European bureaucrats $200 million per year and tell them to do something useful. There is a European history of stupid government leadership: most Popes, Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Chirac (j/k, don't flame me all you French ./ers), and finally, all united Europe type bodies (like the EU, UN, KKK, Black Panthers, and Teamsters).

Europe is like the United States. The only main differences being: U.S. economy is dominate, U.S. military is dominate, U.S. uses 1 main language compared to Europes many, the U.S. has actually defeated England in a war within the last 500 years, the U.S. Constitution has remained relavent for 200+ years, U.S. citizens value freedom and will kick ass to maintain it, the U.S. is very ethnically diverse (the U.S. being the country of immigrants that it is), and, finally (and my personal favorite), the U.S. has lower taxes that most (if not all) of Europe.

I know that many Europeans (read German/Swiss) believe that they are intellectually superior to Americans, many (read French) believe they are more unique than Americans, many (read eastern Eurpoean basketball players) believe that they "got game" or have "skills", many (read all) believe that Americans are fat (true), and many (read Finnish) believe that Linux was invented in Finland (when in fact it was invented by Al Gore working closely with Larry Ellison). While this all may be true, you still can't say so if I critize you on my blog in the U.S.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[zakezuke]

I agree fully.

I know in america, while I don't remember the specefic laws on the subject, that radio / telivision have to give equal air time to a contervercial issue, and this law/reg was used in the 1960's and 1970's in order to justify putting on anti-smoking comercials.

It was a free speech issue after a fasion as no one wanted to be critical of their top advertisers, but it was more a equal access issue.

Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communication

[reallocate]

Media is media. This won't have a "chilling effect" on Internet communications because any publically available Internet publication is not private communication, but a public medium. If a nation enforces right to reply in regard to media such as newspapers, radio and television, why should it not also enforce right to reply in other media?

Internet publications should not draw a pass simply because they use a different technology. Nor should weblogs, mailing lists, etc., expect an exemption because they are "personal" or often operated by only one person.

If you want what you say to be considered private communications, you wouldn't print it in a newspaper or broadcast it on radio or TV. Likewise, if you want what you write to be seen as private communications, don't put it on the Internet.

I don't see why...

[dafoomie]

I don't see why that, If I criticize someone on my website, that I should be responsible for their response. If I criticize Microsoft, and they feel the need to respond to it, I think they just might have a website of their own, where they can say whatever they want. Of course, I don't think Microsoft cares what I say, and I don't think I'll get a rebuttal on their front page. Similarly, I think that most of the responses will be form letters. It may not even address the specific criticism, it will probably just end up being a source of free advertising - just post your sales pitch everywhere someone talks about you.

Re:I don't see why...

[arose]

Look at it from the other side, what if Microsoft criticizes you? You have no media exposure, they have loads of it, wouldn't you like to have your response right there with their statement?

They already have a 'Right of Reply'

[Jack William Bell]

They can post their own response to the Internet just as easily as anyone else. It isn't like the Net makes it hard...

This is the kind of thing about the European 'way' that gets me; all the crap they do that seems to level the playing field, while the real power remains concentrated in a very small number of people. No wonder the American Jacksonians and Jeffersonians give them fits!

Re:Thanks Council of Europe.

[GMontag]

LOL, for those that don't know, Jon would frequently reply to critics and take up a good conversation that was much shorter AND more informative than the original article (easily possible).

The king of the knee-jerk reply is Seth. I may have had the only /. post ever to criticize a printed quote of his that did not generate a massive reply campaign. Sorry, can't remember the exact post, it was a few months ago.

Re:America seems really terrible...

[banzai51]

Europe doesn't tend towards protection of privacy, they tend toward protection of the State.

Re:Thanks Council of Europe.

[Simonetta]

Suppose Jon Katz replies with a 100 MegaByte file(say a few pages of nonsense boilerplate text that has been scanned at 4800 dots per inch and sent as a BMP image file) as an official response.
Then the assh0le sets up a little script that constantly bombards your site with requests to download this file with a dial-up connection.
Would you still be legally required to keep this 'official reply' on-line on your website?
Europeans tend to be really good at mandating a moral balance for dispute resolution (they have too, they've fücked up to the point where if they blow it one more time like 1939 or 1914 or 1814 or 1714 or 1614 or 1514, ect then they will make themselves extinct). Nevertheless this moral balance for redress of slander should always be a guide for accepted procedures rather than an exact and precise legal code that becomes absurd when applied with malicious intent.

re: two questions

[ed.han]

"the total lack of regulation on the internet has led to a situation where anybody can say anything about anybody with no redress."

you say this as if it's a bad thing. seriously: so what? are people stupid enough to believe everything they read online? if so, well, serves 'em right.

if i were to say, for example, that "bill gates consorts with dark powers in the basement of his home", that's just clearly silly.

similarly, if i said, "george w. bush is a moron as evidenced by his inability to pronounce a very common word correctly" what's the big deal?

people say stupid/ignorant things all the time; just ask rick santorum of pennsylvania. :>

ed

Authenticate?

[drinkypoo]

This would mean that you would be required to post the responses as well as authenticate their origin and make the responses available for some period of time.

So what can I demand for authentication? I could refuse to accept any reply that was not hand-delivered because you can't be sure that it's authentic unless the individual themself shows up with the information. I guess notarization would be close enough, maybe.

Re:Authenticate?

[juahonen]

I think signing with PGP/GPG is enough proof of autheticy. If the public key has been available on a public keyserver prior to the writing of the original story.

Besides, you can phone the company/person to verify that the response is authentic. If they withold their contact information, you cannot verify them, and thus cannot be made to publish their response on grounds it's origin unconfirmable. The key issue here is wether the writer of the original story is responsible for the costs of authenticating the response.

Re:Authenticate?

[drinkypoo]

I think signing with PGP/GPG is enough proof of autheticy. If the public key has been available on a public keyserver prior to the writing of the original story.

Sorry, I don't trust any public key which I don't get from a face to face transaction. Isn't that what we've been told to do all this time? If someone signed a message, and I responded to it, then I would believe that another message signed the same way was from the same person, but not that it was from any particular person.

I actually like it for two reasons, but...

[uncadonna]

First and obviously, it will weaken the tendency for people to build isolated self-referential extremist commmunities of delusion, like fundamentalists, deconstructionists, ultralibertarians, etc., without linking to contrary evidence.

Secondly, it will of necessity force adoption of mechanisms to authoritate message sources, something long overdue and which we shouldn't wait much longer on, lest Microsoft declare itself the authority, as is clearly its intent.

I don't see the basic idea as a threat to free speech at all. On the other hand...

I see potential for enormous practical problems. How can we avoid this mechanism being spammed? Suppose scientology sets up a spider/bot to search for every instance of scientology words on the web and to demand a link to their propaganda?

This could be quite a hassle for many low-resource high-controvery sites and subject them to a coordinated denial of service attack by opponents demanding links that would need to be added manually.

It could also nicely defeat the whole Google algorithm. It's easy to get my site highly rated if I can force inbound links!

In other words, while imho the idea has some basic merit, a great deal of thought needs to go into protecting it from abuse.

Re:I actually like it for two reasons, but...

[5KVGhost]

First and obviously, it will weaken the tendency for people to build isolated self-referential extremist commmunities of delusion, like fundamentalists, deconstructionists, ultralibertarians, etc., without linking to contrary evidence.

Huh? Whether that's a worthwhile goal or not, WTF business does any government have imposing rules on private individuals designed to control who can speak to whom about what? That's a horrible proposition, and completely unnecessary.

Re:I actually like it for two reasons, but...

[newhoggy]

It could also nicely defeat the whole Google algorithm. It's easy to get my site highly rated if I can force inbound links!

Unless web standards could be changed to allow google differentiate between links.

Re:I actually like it for two reasons, but...

[uncadonna]

Huh? Whether that's a worthwhile goal or not, WTF business does any government have imposing rules on private individuals designed to control who can speak to whom about what? That's a horrible proposition, and completely unnecessary.

No one is denying any right to speak, all that is proposed here is facilitating opposition by requiring an extra bit of speech: "Rant rant bitch bitch poison venom violent crap. Mr. Mandela registers a disagreement with this position _here_".

No one forces the reader to click on the contrary opinion. It is simply made available.

The general right to live in a civil society has to be weighed against the individual right to make inflammatory comments. I don't think the suggested solution is practical, but I think it is interesting. It would be efficient if it worked as envisioned - a very small cost in liberty for a very large increase in availability of discourse. It's hard to see how it would work in practice, though.

Re:I actually like it for two reasons, but...

[BandwidthHog]

...it will weaken the tendency for people to build isolated self-referential extremist commmunities of delusion...

Ya missed a few.

Nope

[jefu]

At least you only have to hyperlink to them.

No. The draft proposal says that a link is ok. It does not say that the person or organization that wants to provide a rebuttal needs to provide space for the reply. It looks to me like a statement like "Walpurgis Mart Sucks" could result in "Walpurgis Mart" requiring me to put up a 100 Mb response.

Even so, I do have a couple questions about links as required here.... If I link to someone's reply from a period (".")in my text, is that sufficient? How about linking from an image map? Or from some fancy javascript? Could my link be set up to popunder a 10 by 10 pixel window that looks like it originates from the people who dont like what I said and that refuses to close?

Enquiring minds and all that ....

Re:Nope

[AndyS]

You tell them to sue you. They sue you. You point out to the judge that 100Mb is several times the original argument, is significantly larger than required to make their point, and is contrary to the spirit of the law. You win.

All it's saying is that it's stupid for the law to say 'limited to the original' or 'limited to 1Mb' as times will move on. It says flexible, not stupid. Any judge is going to throw out a demand to host a video file in response to a text file.

Re:Nope

[jc42]

One comment I found interesting was:

Long replies are fine. "There should be flexibility regarding the length of the reply, since there are (fewer) capacity limits for content than (there are) in off-line media."

This seems to be saying that if you make even a 1-line comment about my organization or country or whatever, I can flood you with terabytes of replies, and you must buy the disks to hold them.

This isn't a frivolous concern. In several political disputes (e.g., Turks re the Armenian massacre, Greeks re the state of Macedonia, and several others), there is a history of even a passing mention in a newsgroup producing a flood of automated "replies" that makes the newsgroup unusable. There is software that scans for keyworkd and posts the replies, which sometimes measure in gigabytes.

OTOH, if there is any sort of limit other than a hard byte count, we can expect that even the slightest fuzziness in the law will result in huge lawsuits with the intent of bankrupting the person who posted the passing comment. This is the nature of much politics.

Is there any reasonable defense against this, other than to never say anything about anyone that is less than the most fulsome praise?

re: nope

[ed.han]

um, aren't you assuming a certain, potentially unwarranted, faith in the wisdom of the judge and/or attorneys?

i'm just saying...

Re:Nope

[jefu]

If you're sued by Walpurgis Mart (for example) you've already lost - you'll spend quite a bit of money and time just to protect your "I had bad service the other day" remark. Or you can remove the remark. Or you can just never post anything negative about anyone or anything. Or you can put up their 100 Mb rebuttal.

Even if a judge does decide (after you've spent a few tens of thousands of euros in legal fees) that the 100 Mb response is overkill, they can easily try again with 10Mb. And so on.

Anyone also notice the requirement that a rebuttal be posted to everyone in a mailing list where you've posted something critical. I can see it now :
Recently John Doe posted on this mailing list a note accusing me of fraud. However, I can prove that I am not deceiving you - I represent the widow of President Mobutu and have $3,790,000 tied up in Nigeria where....

Not just spam, but court required spam!

Maybe a rolled up newspaper...

[RandyF]

How about the offending paper, magazine, or web site having to submit to the o' "rolled up newspaper accross the snout" routine. Just make sure you "roll" the appropriate media.

Jim: So what are you in the hospital for?

Bubba: Somebody hit me accross the nose with a CPU... It looked like they tried to roll it up first...

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

[zulux]

Europe does lack American style "Freedom Of Speach." There's nothing wrong with the European model, it's just that most Americans woulden't put up with it, it's too damn letigious to open your mouth in Europe.

Just last week and Italian food-reviewer decried McDonald's food as ashitty food - and guess what, the Italian McDonald's compay is suing him for $25 million (USD) for his statments: more info

German libal laws are so strict, that you might as well not say anything controversial if your wan't to remain outside of the courts.

Just my $.02 worth (0.0178 EU)

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:Newspapers too -- yes

[DominiqueChanet]

In Belgium at least, this is not such a big problem: the press laws give everyone that is being criticized in the press a certain "right of rebuttal", but the law states that the newspaper or magazine or whatever that published the critical article in the first place should only reserve as much space for the rebuttal as was reserved for the original article. So if your criticism is only half a page long, the newspaper is only obliged to publish a rebuttal of about the same length. If this policy is extended to web sites (which I expect), the logical extension would be to allow only a rebuttal up to the same amount of bytes as the original article. So the company can't force you to host 100Meg files or any such stuff :-)

Sounds good to me

[Lord_Slepnir]

Before requiring me to post replies, keep in mind my HTML skills aren't all that good. I may accidently put it as size 1 font the same color as the background.

Just be careful how you phrase it

[MickLinux]

Say something like "the best complement I can come up with, for SCO, is that as lowdown, scum-sucking worms, they would be ideal for a deep-sea fishing trip. And this isn't criticism -- it really is a complement, and I do mean it from the bottom of my scumbucket.

Some people say that their lawsuit is a petty attempt to steal what was never theirs, but I really think that petty is too trivial for what they are doing: they are redefining the meaning of the term sludgehammer, and any coining of a new word is important, for it implies a new social status. "

If it isn't criticism, they don't have a right to reply.

Re:Just be careful how you phrase it

[salimma]

Some people say that their lawsuit is a petty attempt to steal what was never theirs, but I really think that petty is too trivial for what they are doing

One thing for sure: the SCO shareholders are mighty happy right now. Wonder how many of them will get burned for not bailing in time - i.e. before the court ruling.

Their lawsuit keeps changing too - did they not say a few months back that they have no plan to sue Linux distributors?

Re:Thanks Council of Europe.

[arose]

Comon sense would dictate that the reply should not be much longer/larger then the critic.

Re:avoid traffic problems; article text

[PhxBlue]

In many cases, slashdotter's have been able to overlook Malda's homosexuality. . .

Nice to see the moderators are still reading the entire post and catching phrases like the above. I guess that's how it got its "informative" moderation.

</sarcasm>

Hold on a minute!

[Noryungi]

People, you have to remember that EU citizens have a healthy habit of just plain ignoring idiotic laws such as this one. And law enforcement people usually don't... ahem... enforce them...

Which is why I cannot too worried about it. Crypto was outlawed in France for years, for instance, but getting PGP was as simple as calling your firendly neighbourhood BBS and firing up that ZModem (I know, this happened to me!).

Besides, I doubt SCO (or Microsoft, or ...) are stupid enough to attack something like Slashdot (or your personal web site), so we are all probably safe for the moment.

Finally, if you have juicy information on, say, a clear violation of the GPL by Microsoft, you'd better back it up with some serious proof, so that MS can't sue you into oblivion...

In short: nothing to see here. Carry on.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[DaveHowe]

Seems ok until you consider the effect on an individual's website. The true power of the web is that anyone can publish thier thoughts. Imagine you critize a company that you had a bad experience with on your personal website. Imagine them shutting you down because you didn't allow them to counter.
Most ISPs will do that *anyhow* - on a simple lawyers letter saying the site is defamatory and/or contains copyrighted material of their client

Or, you allow them to reply, but they then create a reply that voilates your bandwidth TOS. Either way you're off the net. Your single voice will be stifled.
A link to a reply is apparently acceptable - you could just insist they host their own reply, and provide you with an url....

Unintended Consequences

[jefu]

This looks to me like a rather wonderful experiment in the law of unintended consequences.

I've already thought of a couple ways to subvert the intention of the rule and a couple more ways to just have fun with it all.

I think its a rather dumb rule, but would rather like to see it implemented just for the sheer amusement value of watching what happens. (Imagine, for instance, IMDB being required to post a rebuttal to every negative movie review. )

Already exists.

[The Cisco Kid]

You already have the 'right to respond' - set up your own website/page and feel free to refute or debate anything you want.

I don't see why someone should have the right to respond at the expense of the person they are responding to.

Thats the beauty of the net - anyone and everyone has a right to publish their own opinion, as long as they pay for the resources they use.

Now, I can see if a professional news organization posts a critizism, that they might be motivited by their own desire to maintain a reputation of being fair to offer a *LINK* on their site to someone elses differing opinion (but not required to), but surely it's not right to require them to provide the resources for hosting that differing opinion.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Hittite Creosote]

why should I have to put the speech of somebody I criticized on it?

You don't. You might have to link to it. Ignore the biased article. Try reading the actual report summary. Oh look, they're not enforcing the draft, they're still discussing it! And they've spotted everything you've complained about. What about the stipulation that the response must be made available for a period of time at least equal to the duration of the original criticism and at least 24 hours?

Does a Google cache count?

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Randolpho]

Your single voice will be stifled.

Not so. If you do not want the company's reply to be seen, then you are stifling *their* free speech, not the other way round. That's what the right to reply is all about. It *increases* freedom of speech by forcing debate. One-sided spouting-off must have a counter, or it is worthless.

Easy 'nuff

[ch-chuck]

just switch your blog to slashcode. You want to reply? Just click 'reply'.

Re:Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communicat

[Frater 219]

This won't have a "chilling effect" on Internet communications because any publically available Internet publication is not private communication, but a public medium.

If I print a statement of my opinion about you on my personal Web site, operated on my own host, on the end of an Internet connection I pay for, you have no right to demand that I incur similar expenses to carry your opinion of my opinion. It doesn't matter how popular my site is, or whether you think of it as a "blog" or a "news medium" or what-have-you: the fact that I spend money to promulgate my opinion in no wise obligates me to spend money to promulgate yours.

To propose the contrary is indeed chilling -- because it means that if I post something you object to, you have the right to impose costs upon me. It means that unless I am able to bear the costs of printing both my own opinion and the opinions of everyone who disagrees with me, I cannot print my own opinion. It also means that if I am unable to countenance spending money to print the opinion of any particular objector -- for instance because said objector's views are vile and repugnant to me -- that I may not print my own.

Such a "right of reply" may be survivable by "big media" organizations which do not really have any views of their own. It would be, however, fatal to the "small media" organizations -- individual, idiosyncratic, and opinionated, devoted to exposing those sides of stories that do not get mainstream coverage -- that the Web in particular permits to thrive.

Fair & Reasonable

[Martin Spamer]

Is this a requirement for newspapers in Europe?

(in UK) Yes via the Press Complaints Commission and similar right of response exists with broadcasters moderated by the Broadcasting Standards Commission

but this sounds very bad

I have to disagree, typically Broadcasters & Newspapers have much more power that the subjects of their reports. A right of response seems entirely fair and reasonable to me.

What about this scenario?

[Lieutenant_Dan]

You put something on your site criticizing Company X. Now Company X demands that you publish their reply, which includes a retort to your comment, but also a complaint against Corporation A.

Now does Corporation A have the right to post something on your site, considering you never even mentioned them initially?

That would be pretty crazy (and funny)!

Shortsighted People

[Anonymous Coward]

I am never surprised by the number of small-minded short-sighted people I find on Slashdot.

First, it's a GOOD law, coming from a GREAT idea. Why? Simply put - it prevents major media outlets from doing a hachet job on a person.

It's unfortunate that we don't have this in the US, really. I can't count the number of times I've seen Newspaper, and especially TV, pull complete hachet jobs on folks. Tabloids make their LIVING off making outrageous statments that aren't true.

But go ahead. Keep thinking that you should somehow have a right to bash anyone you like without fear of repraisal. Then, when someone with a lot of money and power destroys your career publically (whistleblowers getting thrashed by their company, etc) don't come crying here.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Chatterton]

If you have a blog and one day decide you just don't want to maintain it any more (or can't afford the fees associated with hosting, or whatever) and decide to take it down, should you then be required to keep the site running an additional period of time just to be sure the response is available for the same length of time as your original comment or longer?

No They just say that you need to keep the response a least 24h. If you delete the original article you can delete the response at the same time. You don't need to keep the response to an extent that the publication time of the response equal the publication time of the original article. Just 24h or as long as your article is published.

Chilling effect...

[Daetrin]

This will likely have a chilling effect on Internet communication

Because well all know that having to listen to the other guy talk back to you totally kills that whole communication thing. Nothing like having to consider both sides of an issue to ruin your pleasant complacency.

Besides, everyone would rather pay up or remove offending information due to libel suits instead, right?

I don't have a problem with this

[Stephen Samuel]

I don't think that this is a big deal -- especialy if I'm alowed to post a URL pointing to the response (hosted by the person responding).

I would have a bit of a problem if the 'response' turned out to just a generic advertisement. In that case, I might actually ask for a text-only response up to about the same size as the original (although I'd allow links). That way, people would know that I wasn't wilfully pointing them at commercial advertisements.

Having said that, I think that there may be other possibilities -- like creating a page with my own warning that their 'response' seems a lot like an add to me, and then including the link.

Here's how forced speech is bad...

[siskbc]

How the hell does it limit free speech? Heck, how is it forced speech, you are not required to say that you agree with the criticism.

The fact that I am forced to post it meets the forced speech standard. As stated by someone else, newspapers ARE NOT required to post letters to the editor - good journalistic practice, yes, but not required. Similarly, blog writers SHOULD post responses in the interest of discussion, but requiring? That's insane.

It allows people to actually exercise their freedom of speech in a way that it matters. If microsoft says that I suck, I can say "no i don't" as many times as I want, nobody will hear it.

That's your problem - freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want, not a medium or a forum. That's like artists who scream censorship when their work isn't subsidized by the government. They're wrong too, in that they are free to create whatever they want, and we're free to ignore it and not pay for it. For what it's worth, though, if MS's opinion of you is slanderous, you have the right to have them stop doing that if it's unfounded - one of your remedies against unfettered US free speech.

Ultimately, this is something that the Supreme Court dealt with a long time ago, check it out if you like. What Europe is doing would not be allowed here. Basically, the US view is "say what you want, however you want, however you can." By your example, get a blog if you want people to listen to you. By the marketplace of ideas, if they don't listen, perhaps it's because no one cares what you, or I, have to say.

As for the news being cleared up by right of response, that's completely infeasible and is the best evidence of the failing of your goal. So if I'm a news show like 60 minutes, I have to publish every response I get? They would cease to have a newscast. In effect, the forced speech requirement kills THEIR right to free speech. That's why it doesn't work, and won't work.

Bottom line is, the US has the most open interpretation of the 1st amendment (at least as it is written, if not implemented). Here, with few exceptions, no one can tell you what not to say - or what TO say, and it's that second part that people frequently forget about, though it's equally important.

This is NOT new...

[MosesJones]

Anyone who has dealt with the shipping industry, in paticular oil, knows that this isn't new. For instance

You are an American company using a Danish shipping company to move oil from Saudi Arabia to France. While the ship is in the middle of the Med you have an offer for the oil-tanker to sell in mid-shipment (this does happen) from a British company.

If there is any problem with the shipment, where do you sue ?

The answer is that this is agreed in the contract in advance, so you elect which country the case will be heard in. This isn't any different here as its the location of the individual not the actual hardware that matters when talking about end-vendor litigation. And the individual (or corporation) elects their designate country. For corporations this is limited to one of the traders, the base where the ship is registered or the source and destination ports.

For servers I can't see it being much else but the location of the individual as they are the only person involved in the transactions.

Shipping Law is much more complex as it deals with corporations who have more lawyers. This is IMO (IANAL) the worst case that could happen for the internet and only when large companies are involved. For individuals there is a very simple test

The nearest policeman is where the law applies. That means that the US can shut down the server if they want to, and the European police can arrest you for what was on it.

Re:I AM a representitive

[adamofgreyskull]

Your spelling certainly suggests that you work for SCO...

Don't write this off just yet...

[nepheles]

A knee-jerk reaction might be to rubbish this as a crude measure, which infringes on free-speech, but upon consideration maybe it isn't so bad after all.

If you are confident in your criticism; if it's valid, and if it's true, then there is no problem with this. There ought to be no easy reply or rebuttal, and, if you still are in receipt of one of these letters, it shouldn't be too hard to show how it is invalid. Indeed, it might give you more opportunity to elaborate on your criticism.

If, on the other hand, what you write is merely polemic and diatribe, with poorly-researched or untrue facts, this law could be a major irritant. And here is where it would be most useful

Begaune maybe the internet needs more of the first sort of people and less of the second

Re:Don't write this off just yet...

[nepheles]

Bah, typo. "Begaune" should be "because".

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[TheCrazyFinn]

You are not obligated to provide a forum for their speech.

Freedom of speech doen't mean that you need to let them speak at your cost, merely that you can't stop them from speaking.

But of course, there's no freedom of Speech in Europe, just freedom for correct speech.

Links

[Nucleon500]

Most of the problems with this rule would go away if the law stated that links are the only necessity. In other words, if you want to reply, it's your responsibility to host it, and the offending site must only post a link. This would quell fears of offensive Slashdotting, and it makes more sense anyway.

endless cycle?

[xpulsar87x]

Let's say you post some slandarous comment about xyz corporation on your personal log, simply, xyz is buttfaced or something silly to that effect. What if xyz's legal response is "no we aren't, you are a buttface." Are you then allowed to respond to that comment, and if you don't reference the company in your response, does that mean they are allowed another response?

I could just say "no i'm not." and leave it at that.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[grahamm]

Would such a law not also force the ISP (or web host) to continue to serve both your original and the reply for at least the minimum time specified by the law?

Re:America seems really terrible...

[stinky wizzleteats]

Is it just me, or is that the stupidest comment ever on slashdot?

Re:Private property rights.

[Lieutenant_Dan]

But your website is visible to (and presumably meant to be read by) all of the world. Real world analogy: if you put up signs on your front yard that are plainly visible from the public road, you can be reasonably expected to take some responsibility of its content. If you take them inside your house nobody cares what you put on them.

Very good point.

I wonder if I put a disclaimer on my web site saying, "Before you enter my site you have to agree that nothing that you read or find on this site will influence your opinions on anything.", if that would help me bypass this law?

Since people would have to agree to the disclaimer prior viewing your content, it would be hard for a company to demand to have their reply posted since no one was affected by it?

Or am I just spouting out nonsense?

UK is probably exempt

[arevos]

The article notes:
"Even today, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom have not enacted a right of reply for traditional media, and it's a good bet that they won't for the Internet, either."

So the UK probably won't get this law, especially since if this proposal were passed, then it would be outright hypocritical not to apply it to traditional media. And the traditional media; tabloids, TV, etc, wouldn't be only too happy to crusade against such a law.

Someone please mod this up...

[EnglishTim]

This hits the nail on the head - the article just seems to be a bit of an anti-EU stir-up - and he hardly does his credibility any good by inferring that we don't have any freedom of speech over here simply because we don't have a 'First Amendment' - (Having instead the European Convention on Human Rights).

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.

Re:avoid traffic problems; article text

[TheCrazyFinn]

Because of the EU, which is a legal entity controlling most of Europe, with increasing supra-national powers. This is the 'Europe' to whcih we refer. you have chosen to integrate, now deal with the consequences.

of course, France is noted for disobeying the EU when it feels like it, but most of the other EU countries comply with EU laws quite well.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Randolpho]

I disagree. Speech without response is not speech. There is a reason why there are laws that restrict speech; you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot make baseless claims against another (it's called libel or slander or somesuch ;)).

Groups vs. Individuals

[Daetrin]

Who exactly has the right of free response? What happens when a person or group slanders a generalized group?

For example, the next time the RIAA goes on some spiel on a European website about how people who d/l mp3s are evil pirates who are destorying the recording industries profits, robbing artists of house and home, and eat babies on the side, who has the right of response?

Can any person who is willing to admit that they have traded mp3s force the RIAA or whichever site hosted the article to include a counter-response? If so, just the first person who responds? Or every response they get? Or would the file-traders need to form some kind of official group to make the response? Or does the RIAA get away with it because they're slandering a nebulous group rather than a specific individual?

Re:Private property rights.

[Larsing]

If you're paying the hosting bill and running the site, then the site is your private property.

Yes and no. You could argue that a portion of the hardware/system resources are your private property (but not really, you are just renting them) and that the site content is your intellectual property, but...
It is also a mass media publication and should, by all sense and reason, be subject to the same laws and regulations that govern all other mass media publications.

(And please don't slap me in the face with the US constitution. As impressive as it may be, it relly doesn't apply to us on this side of "the pond". Finally, IANAL, etc...)

Parent not "insightful"

[infolib]

Company X's response is in the form of an extremely large file [...] My hosting company kindly then sends me a bill

The draft says the precise rules should take into account "the technical specificities of on-line media". This includes the possibility of linking, and "There should be flexibility regarding the length of the reply since there are less capacity limits for content than in off-line media."

It is clear that they have not done away with "capacity limits" at all, they're just saying that a 5 page reply to a half page article is not the problem for a web page it'd be for a newspaper.

Whatever, I'm still inclined to be against the proposal. Hope to gain some insights from the /. discussion.

Chillnig? No way, will create dialog!

[jordandeamattson]

I thought one of the lofty, uptopian goals of the internet that we all hold out is that it will create dialog on issues. If someone can say something about me and I have no way to reply in that forum (vs. creating my own reply vehicle), then it is a monologue, not a dialog that is happening.

The requirement that a news organization be forced to take "letters to the editor" in response to their pieces doesn't impose an undo burden on the publisher. There is little, if any marginal cost to bundle up all of the replies to pieces in the last week and put them into the "Letters to the Editor Forum" or section of your ezine.

In terms of authentication, I believe a reasonable requirement to put down here, is that the person reply has to have a digsig verifying that they are who they say they are. Nothing big. Nothing burdensome.

This seems like sound public policy. It forces those that have a web based publication who write about someone to a level of accountability to those who they have written about. What is so bad about that?

Re:avoid traffic problems; article text

[pe1rxq]

Is Antarctica removed in the US version of the world? I remember six continents....

Jeroen

Uh, no accountability is not the issue

[ShatteredDream]

It's chilling because it holds bloggers to the same level of accountability as CNN/BBC/FoxNews. They have the time and resources to authenticate and publish the other side. I don't have that luxury since I'm a college student who will probably be working part time soon and taking summer classes.

Europe should give liberalism a shot instead of finding every single possible way around it. Hey you never know, give your people freedom and you might actually not be inclined to slaughter each other and Jews like cattle.

Re:Uh, no accountability is not the issue

[JPelorat]

"Uh, no accountability is not the issue"

"...it holds bloggers to the same level of accountability as CNN/BBC/FoxNews."

Make up your mind. It's either about accountability or it isn't.

Re:Uh, no accountability is not the issue

[gr66nman]

"They have the time and resources to authenticate and publish the other side."

Seriously? How long does it take to create a link on your site to an organization's rebuttal? Even if you had to add the text to your site, how long do you think that would take? I'm thinking 5 mins. This right to reply doesn't mean that for every piece of information you put on your site, you have to verify the information. It means that if an organization wishes to refute any disparaging remarks on your site that they have a legal avenue in which to defend themselves.

Re:Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communicat

[Kupek]

If a nation enforces right to reply in regard to media such as newspapers, radio and television, why should it not also enforce right to reply in other media?

I am unaware of any such enforcement of right of reply in newspapers, radio and television. Do European countries have that?

Re:Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communicat

[reallocate]

If you operate a newspaper, own your own printing and distributing operation, and pay the salaries of all your employees, I have every right to reply to remarks about me printed in your newspaper and you have an obligation to publish them. The same applies if you are printing a one-page mimeographed handout in your parent's basment. Ditto for radio and television. In all instances you bear the responsibilities that go along with operating a public media outlet.

I can think of no reason why an Internet publication should expect to be treated in a different manner. It is not a matter of whether or not a particular media outlet can bear the cost of running a reply. If an outlet, no matter how big or how small, can afford to publish remarks about someone, they can certainly afford to publish that person's reply. So, yes, I would expect you to bear the costs of publishing my response. That is part of the responsibility you assumed when you began to publish. (And consider, publishing my reply is very likely to be much, much less costly than responding to any lawsuit I might file.)

The key notion is that the technology used to publish is not relevant to this issue. An Internet resource that is available to the public -- such as Slashdot and all the posts on it -- is as much a public medium as any other, and should be expected to adhere to the same legalities.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[FeloniousPunk]

I disagree. Speech without response is not speech. There is a reason why there are laws that restrict speech; you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot make baseless claims against another (it's called libel or slander or somesuch ;)).
You've got your examples all wrong. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is against the law not because people aren't allowed to respond (which they could) but because given the special circumstances such an act could lead to a panic and thus injuries or death.
Similarly, slander and libel have nothing to do with whether someone is allowed to reply to the slanderous or libelous comments. They are untrue claims made with malicious intent to destroy another person's reputation. Having a right of reply would mean nothing - if I print a false story about you saying you are a child molester, your little letter of reply "No I'm not" is irrelevant - the damage to your reputation is done. That's why these acts are crimes and are properly dealt with in court.
These laws I think are just further examples of the sort of meaningless, bien-pensant crap that is peddled in European politics today: they don't really do anything of value, they make the leftist elite feel good about themselves, and above all, they provide more fodder for the gargantuan bureaucracy who gets to pick up the mission to make sure that everyone complies with it.

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

[kisak]

Just last week and Italian food-reviewer decried McDonald's food as ashitty food - and guess what, the Italian McDonald's compay is suing him for $25 million (USD) for his statments: more info

Eh, McDonalds is an American company. What does their suing (not the European way of doing things I might add) have to do with free speech in Europe?

Overseas!

[newr00tic]

I fail to see this as a problem, even for the people in need of bashing other people, etc..

One could just use any server OUTSIDE the E.U., and instead of the proof shit they're gonna force us to supply, you could stick up a picture of yourself and "Señor Fuck'ho E.U.io" shaking hands infront of the Colombian server (or whatever)..

This is a non-issue..

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[TheCrazyFinn]

You can respond all you like, but to make me subsidize your response is to infringe my rights.

Libel is another thing entirely (And a matter for the courts).

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

[Larsing]

Just last week and Italian food-reviewer decried McDonald's food as ashitty food - and guess what, the Italian McDonald's compay is suing him for $25 million (USD) for his statments

And how, exactly, is this less sane than suing McDonald's for a comparable ammount of money for serving you a cup of hot coffee..?

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

[AndyS]

The thing that gives me shivers is 'morals'

The rest of the responsibilities are fine (and are pretty much enshrined in the US through case law). But morals strikes me as allowing you to push all sorts of things. Mind you, I think that pushing that too hard can contravene article 9, so maybe it's just stopping you from having sex in public :)

Balance of Power

[Martin Spamer]

Scenario 1
- I'm the editor of slash-effective.net.uk, the biggest site in the blog-sphere and I write an article rebutting Joe Grundy's undies.
- Joe Grundy publishes an obscure page on ambridge-village-life.net.uk, refuting my claims and Lynda Snell deals with all his dirty laundry.
Result: thousands read my account and few read his own rebuttal.

Scenario 2
- Joe Grundy publishes an obscure blog page ambridge-village-life.net.uk, write an article rebutting me as an ignorant townie with no knowledge of rural life.
- I'm the editor of slash-effective.co.uk, a tiny under-linked site in the blog-sphere and I write an article rebutting Joe Grundy's undies.
Result: Nobody reads his page so I'm not bothered. If I happen to be that bothered I can rebut his claims myself.

Whilst presented humorously this is a serious point. If I am larger and more powerful I have an obligation to allow fair access, that is what this proposed law will provide. If I'm smaller that obligation is worthless. The subject already has more power to spin their PR.

#1 Joe Grundy/Lynda Snell are characters in a popular radio soap who have just introduced a blog.

Re:avoid traffic problems; article text

[TheCrazyFinn]

And how many members of the Council of Europe are not either EU members, or applicants?

Not more than a tithe, I would expect.

What's the problem?

[jannic]

I really don't see why this law could be a bad thing. After all, it just states what I'd consider a matter of courtesy - if I criticise somebody, I'll give him the opportunity to defend himself.

Of course, this can be a burden on small site operators. But I still prefer an email asking me to post some reply on my website instead of a cease-and-desist letter from some lawyer....

The Devil is in the details

[HiThere]

If posting a URL to the information that the respondent provides, perhaps with a "govt approved" icon next to it, so that it will be easy to locate, is sufficient, then I seen nothing at all wrong with this. In fact, it seems beneficial.

(Then you can demand that they link to your reply to their reply, etc.)

If you are required to supply them with bandwidth, then this opens the gates to many abuses.

So implementation is the key. This could be either good or bad, but it sounds to me as if the probability is that this will mainly benefit society and individuals. (After many recent govt. actions, some cynicism is quite reasonable, however. But I wouldn't want to jump to an assumption that this will be bad against the evidence.)

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[banzai51]

Also remember that in the US, you don't prove the claims are untrue in a slander or lible lawsuit. You have to prove MALICE.

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

[zulux]

Eh, McDonalds is an American company

It's the Italian branch of McDonalds that's sueing the Italian critic for $25,000,000.

EU = communism

[falsification]

The "Council of Europe" is not even elected, and certainly not accountable to anyone. This "law" is equivalent to the destruction of free speech.

The EU = communism. In a few years, America will have to bail out Europe from totalitarianism again. But will we bother? Maybe we should just let them sink.

God Bless the USA.

Re:EU = communism

[xutopia]

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein

When you express your chauvinism do you look smart? Do you realize you make it sound like all other countries are not as good as yours?

There are idiots like yourself in every country in the world : proud of their country just because it is theirs.

Tell me have you ever lived in a different country than your own? Have you even travelled? Do you speak more than one languages? Have you ever spent a year in Europe? Could you even tell people where on the globe your country was when you finished grade 12? Actually did you even finish grade 9?

How can you be so sure that your country is so much more democratic/better than others? How can you compare your countries with others when the only things you know is what CNN and Foxnews tells you?

People like you make everyone in the world sick. You hurt Americans with your chauvinism. Some even wear Canadian flags on their backpacks when travelling just so they aren't associated with idiots like you. The world would be a better place if you could simply travel a little bit while keeping your mouth shut so you can learn a little bit.

Re:EU = communism

[falsification]

Well, that shows me. You didn't even need to make an argument or anything. It must be so reassuring to never have to deal with any of that doubt stuff.

In the USA we have freedom of expression. It's quite a concept. We learned it from Europeans like Voltaire.

Yes, Europe is nice, if a bit pretentious. If you ever want to travel to America, you'd be welcome to. With the strong euro, this summer would be cheap.

Re:EU = communism

[xutopia]

Just how is Europe pretentious? What is your enlightened reasonning behind such a statement!

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[banzai51]

Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you think. Not a manditory debate. You are also free to think and say whatever want even if it is untrue. This is especially important when the truth of the matter is subjective. More to the point, a business is in a far better position to rebut on thier own dime than to transfer that to the individual. Besides, a corporation doesn't have the same rights to speach as an individual.

Boo Hoo

[Snotboble_]

So, everyone are all worried about this; the Internet media are scared to death about the potential consequences of this.

Hey - wake up - take a good look at the site you are reading right now.

A site that delivers news and where readers can talk back and have their reply shown via a visible link for at least 24 hours.

Download SlashCode, remove the A/C posting feature - there, you comply with the upcoming regulations.

Problem being?

Re:you've got to understand - the eu is a dictator

[xutopia]

First your assertion that the constitution was written by average people is wrong. The constitution was written for the people by exceptional people.

The EU is being built today with some great people too. The idea that drives them is working together to avoid war, plagues, tension and be stronger as whole. The movement is driven by fear of empires and all the injustice that comes along with it. If everyone works together no one can be the empire that controls all. No more Napoleon, no more Hitler! Just countries working together for the greater good of the majority.

The EU is not scary at all. I find it's a refreshing thing to see some politicians working towards achieving a goal like this one. It encourages democracy and justice in many countries (see Turkey for example). Saying that this is for the politicians I fail to see how you calculated that one!

I'm not saying that everything will work great with the new EU, I'm just saying that it is building up to be great for every EU citizens. You'd be misinformed if you thought otherwise.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[cpt kangarooski]

Yeah, but if the claims are true, you're screwed. Truth is an absolute defense.

What's the problem?

[autopr0n]

Yeah, maybe it will have a chilling effect on blowhards who think they can shoot their mouths off without taking any criticism.

The only problem is the cost of verification. Really the government should take the responsibility for that. A simple PGP style digital signature system would work. Or even a more simple "if you have access to your website, you're you" rule. Sure, websites can be hacked, but what the hell you have to start somewhere.

This isn't a restriction of freedom of speech, it's just a requirement that makes you responsible for it.

Re:Newspapers

[bobtheheadless]

The power to publish your thoughts is still there. You can post whatever you want. But like all good debates, the other side gets a voice too...
Why not allow them to counter? If you have a good argument in the fist place there isn't much to be scared of.
And the policy allows for a reply to be hyperlinked to, so you don't have to host their reply, just link to it (so bandwidth TOS isn't an issue).

Imagine it the other way -- when a powerful entity criticises you... they would be forced to let you reply too.

Freedom of speech != freedom of publication

[siskbc]

I lost the right to what? Saying things about someone without having to worry about that someone wanting to reply. And I win one right. The right to reply even to the fsck M$

That's not it at all. You have the right to respond to whoever the hell you want. You can write MS a letter right now. What the law is forcing is PUBLICATION. I now have the responsibility to publish a response for any asshat who reads my blog. Oh, that's great.

And as much as I don't like MS, forcing them to post every response they get to their website is retarded. So now we can slashdot them by all writing them letters they have to publish? Ridiculous. That's a monstrously unfair burden.

The problem that we need to get rid of is the perception that freedom of speech is freedom of publication - it is NOT. MS, and the rest of us, have the right to not care a bit what you think. I mean, I don't really care what you think. I'm sure you feel the same about me, which is reasonable. It's nothing personal, it's just that neither of us have opinions that are all that unique or entertaining that there is any reason why someone should be forced to publish what we say. We're just not that cool. Sorry.

What it comes down to is something we always complain about on slashdot - why should the electronic world be different than the non-electronic? If I write a letter, is the recipient required to nail it to their front door for all to see? Is the newspaper required to run my letter to the editor? Is a news program required to give me airtime?

The answer to all those questions is no, despite that some CHOOSE in SOME instances to do just that. And broadcast TV is the most heavily regulated medium of all, so if they enjoy 1st amendment protection with regard to something, so does every other medium. Singling out the internet as a medium here doesn't make any more sense than it does with the DMCA or mindless vulgarity laws (COPA), so the proposition doesn't make sense unless you're going to force every other medium to do the same. And if you want to see TV and newspapers go to crap because every asshat who can use a keyboard or a pen has the right to be published, then that's the way to do it.

Re:Freedom of speech != freedom of publication

[luisdom]

And as much as I don't like MS, forcing them to post every response they get to their website is retarded. So now we can slashdot them by all writing them letters they have to publish? Ridiculous. That's a monstrously unfair burden.

RTFA:
"The all-but-final proposal draft says that Internet news organizations, individual Web sites, moderated mailing lists and even Web logs (or "blogs"), must offer a "right of reply" to those who have been criticized by a person or organization."

The problem that we need to get rid of is the perception that freedom of speech is freedom of publication - it is NOT. MS, and the rest of us, have the right to not care a bit what you think. I mean, I don't really care what you think. I'm sure you feel the same about me, which is reasonable. It's nothing personal, it's just that neither of us have opinions that are all that unique or entertaining that there is any reason why someone should be forced to publish what we say. We're just not that cool. Sorry.
If you criticize me, you are caring what I think. Even if you are M$. If I didn't care what you think, I would not have read your answer, less even write this answer.

Is the newspaper required to run my letter to the editor?
In some places of Europe it is. Usually under another section (letters to the director), which I usually read because I want both POV.

Re:Freedom of speech != freedom of publication

[siskbc]

If you criticize me, you are caring what I think. Even if you are M$. If I didn't care what you think, I would not have read your answer, less even write this answer.

That's garbage. What is defined as "criticism?" Where does THAT legal burden end?

Is the newspaper required to run my letter to the editor? In some places of Europe it is.

Where?

Re:Freedom of speech != freedom of publication

[luisdom]

That's garbage. What is defined as "criticism?" Where does THAT legal burden end?
Maybe what is happening is that I'm used to see this in newspapers, but they seem to manage quite well, they just "post" the reply and that's it. Even if it was not an evident criticism and just a reference to other sources that criticize. Is not that hard... and quite positive for the health of the journalism.

Where?
By reading other posts:
Germany, Belgium and Spain.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[banzai51]

Opinions are rarely absolute truth. Life is lived in the grey areas. Without the protection and freedom to say WHATEVER you want, truth becomes whatever the powerful decide it is. Opinions matter.

Re:avoid traffic problems; article text

[rking]

And how many members of the Council of Europe are not either EU members, or applicants?

Not more than a tithe, I would expect.

If by a tithe you mean 10% then you're way out.

According to the European Union web site, the EU has 15 members and 13 applicants.

According to the Council of Europe web site, the Council of Europe has 45 member stats. That doesn't include the non-voting 'observer' members.

Russia must be the most prominent Council of Europe member that isn't in the EU, or likely to be in the near future, but there are many others too.

This would be good for Linux vs. Microsoft

[lokedhs]

Imagine Linus Torvalds being allowed to publish a rebuttal on some of Microsofts most blatant lies... On Microsofts own web page!

Isn't this what we always wanted?

legally, there is no such thing as "British Law"

[fantomas]

(Not a lawyer but would be interested to hear from one if TheCrazyFinn wishes to find out more...)

There is no such thing as "British Law". I believe there is "English" law (I think this covers England, Wales, Northern Ireland, principly, further info welcomed) and Scots law, covering Scotland... (apologies to various other bits of the UK that I've missed, history makes things sooooo complicated)

I'd be happy if anybody can provide a URL leading to some exact definitions, but as a starter, if somebody offers you a contract that is legal under British law, and it says so in black and white, it's worth nothing!! (found this out from our lawyer when we were writing up AUPs for our little company).

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[autopr0n]

You are not obligated to provide a forum for their speech.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you need to let them speak at your cost, merely that you can't stop them from speaking.

Freedom of speech shouldn't always be restricted to 'those who own the presses'. I have 'freedom of speech' here on slashdot even though I don't own the servers. I have freedom of speech on my PC even though I don't own the network bandwidth. This law is giving people the freedom to tell their side of the story, not silence other people

Whats all the fuss about...

[wasudeo]

In this whole discussion about NEW media and OLD media, folks seem to have lost track of a simple fact...media of any kind is merely an outlet for the dissemation of information and views on any subject. To make a distinction between OLD media outlets (newspapers, magazines etc) and NEW media outlets (blogs etc) is simply stupid. Everyone knows that newspapers criticise people freely but they also give them a forum to present their points of view (usually the letters to the editor column) Just because blogs are decentralised does not mean that they can simply slander anybody all day long without at leat letting their target present his/her ideas to the same audience

Practically also I feel the EU rule is a good idea. At least it'll give affected parties a forum to hit back without reaching out for their phone to call their lawyer and filing for defamation. I mean which option would you prefer giving your target a little space to express his counterpoint or having your blog shut down by his smooth talking legal team (and then making a big fuss on right wing forums like /.)

And whats this talk in the CNET article about European lawmakers not "Getting" the Net. At least they don't come up with trash like the DMCA...

what's that sucking sound?

[akb]

Its all the web hosting companies leaving europe for the US. Thanks Council of Europe!

Analysis.

[Spudley]

The reaction to this has been way over the top. Not unusual for Slashdot, I'll grant, but still I'm suprised to see you moaning so much about a law that effectively enhances your freedom of speech.

Firstly, you're going over the top, because in reality this is never going to affect the little guy, any more than current laws make much difference to someone who prints off fifty copies of something to hand out to his friends. You won't see people or companies trawling the web looking for bad things said about them on every little web page. If your personal page doesn't get any traffic, why should they have any reason to bother you?

On the other hand however, if a site does get a lot of traffic, and they publish a complaint about you or your business, would you not be upset if they then told you that you couldn't have your own say?

All those people looking at that site will presumably accept what is said (after all, it's a high-traffic site, so it must have some respect among it's visitors), so you would be left with a load of people getting a negative view about you, with you not being able to do anything about it.

I think it's perfectly justified in that case that you would want to be able to put your side of the argument across.

Those who complain that the reply might be a huge document that would swamp their site are missing the point, and have obviously not seen how it already operates in the traditional press. Here in Europe, it is routine to see small panels in the corners of pages, making corrections to an article from a previous edition. This is how it works. The newspaper would obviously never publish a hundred-page reply, and neither would a web site be forced to publish a hundred megabyte file. Such a document or file would in any case defeat the point of the excersise (ie to correct any perceived misrepresentation), for the simple reason that no-one would read it.

I haven't studied the article or the proposed law in detail, but if it works in any way close to the way the existing laws work for newspapers, then only people who have anything to fear are those who routinely insult others... and they should probably be more worried about the libel laws, anyway.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[tomhudson]

... and on top of the expenses, etc., what happens when they decide that your 1-line text comment requires a 20-meg pdf, with all sorts of graphs, etc., as a reply? Enough of those and you S/N ratio drops to zip.

All this will do is get people to move their postings to servers into more liberal geographic regions.

My response...

[clambake]

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.

well, it seems to me if this is thier approach then my "response" to critisizm would be a message that says, "This is the precision to which I hate this article" and then add a 400 terabyte representation of PI. Since they are requred to post it, they'll have hard time keeping thier servers up due to disk space let alone a /.'ing caused by a single person trying to read it!

*cough* are you serious?

[starcraftsicko]

[Because] maybe the internet needs more of the first sort of people and less of the second

And which type would you be?

There was a famous European guy in the 1930s and early 1940s that thought the world needed more of one kind of people and less of another kind. I can't seem to remember the details, and I am too busy to research right now... but well, you get the idea.

Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it... or something like that.

Re:Headline ,isleading, this is far from a done de

[hellfire]

What does the first amendment have to do with this law? The first amendment does not guarentee or deny the right of someone to reply to information posted publically about themselves.

In fact, the first amendment GUARENTEES the right of you to stand up and say what you want, including the ability to issue a public rebuttal against someone's comments towards you.

The closest amendment here would be the "right to confront your accuser" but this is only for court.

IANAL, especially a constitutional one, but I can't see how one would prevent this from passing in the United States on Constitutional grounds.

If everyone had a forum, this would be easy.

[twitter]

It would be great if newspapers had to point to specific web pages of the people and firms they report about. If everyone had such a forum, this would be an easy thing to do. In many circumstances, it's only right of the newspaper to provide that forum. Newspapers are widely read publications and even a link to the opinion of a slander victim will only go so far to repair the damage. Not everyone will follow the link. Pointing the NYT's traffic, for example, to some poor dude's geocities page, won't work at all. By the same reasoning, bloggers don't have the same responsiblity as a big newspaper does and should not have to provide so much as a link to companies and firms that have a huge web presence.

Circulation size and bandwith available MUST be taken into account or this law is loony.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[clambake]

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.

Just out of curiosity, what would you do if my response to your criticism was 40,000 pages long? What about 40 billion pages long? What if it's a virus? What if it's child porn? Is there anything in the law saying what the response can be? Or does it just say that, whatever my response, you have to post it?

I don't see this as a problem

[Angst Badger]

If I make a bunch of allegations about some person or company, why shouldn't they be allowed to respond? Most of the posters here seem to be looking at this from the angle of Some Giant Company forcing Some Pathetic Little Blog to publish a corporate press release (as if this were a great imposition, anyway.) Look at it the other way: if Some Giant News Agency runs a story which reflects badly on you, you get a chance to refute the charges in the same venue, which is a much nicer deal than posting something on your blog to be read by a few dozen people while the BBC gets to defame you before millions.

Consider the case when Microsoft or SCO spread their lies about Linux or, for that matter, competing companies. Suddenly, Microsoft doesn't get to run the whole show -- at least in Europe -- and it becomes much harder to spin bullshit without a challenge.

This is all about the "marketplace of ideas." It's just ensuring that the marketplace of ideas is open to everyone instead of just those with deep pockets. I can see how this wouldn't appeal to the socially-Darwinian cash-equals-merit Libertarian crowd, but those less ideologically rigid ought to be able to see that this is a sword that cuts both ways and if it lets the big guy shaft the little guy, the little guy can shaft him right back, and with greater effect.

Only applies to 'professional on-line media'

[saforrest]

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.

Re:Only applies to 'professional on-line media'

[DWIM]

The recommendation, as presently worded, clearly applies only to 'professional on-line media'

Yeah, but why be so selective? Why is this a good idea in principle? The media type should not influence this determination.

Re:Only applies to 'professional on-line media'

[saforrest]

Why is this a good idea in principle? The media type should not influence this determination.

Why not? Clearly there are already different standards for professional media than for Joe Random Blogger; newspapers can be bitten hard for failing to insert words like "alleged", etc. Many newspapers have policies about letters to the editor that require giving prior notice of the letter to anyone attacked in the letter.

There is clearly some use in having these different standards; the question is whether they make sense with the Internet, and whether they actually need to be legislated or whether we could let the market punish those who break the rules.

The Internet is capable of creating a sudden critical mass on a newsworthy issue to a degree never seen in human history. Forcing a response would dampen this ability, but since this critical mass is quite often misdirected (witness the number of alarmist Slashdot stories that turned out to be misunderstandings) this may be a good thing.

I'm inclined to think it wouldn't be, though. Why should we remove the one thing -- capacity for immediate response -- that the Net has going for it?

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Larsing]

Editorialized publications are not required to publish responses, at least not in the USA

Who the F said anything about the USA and who the F cares!?

1. We are talking Europe here. You know, those cheese-munching surrender-monkeys on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
2. We are talking about a non-legislative, advisory body without any actual power.

Talk about a storm in a glass of water...

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

[blaine]

Worst Example Ever.

The "McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit", as it has become known, was vastly misrepresented by the press. If you look at the actual facts, McDonalds deserved what happened. For more information:

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm


Please, stop using this as an example of a specious lawsuit. It is, in fact, a case of the judicial system working as it is supposed to work.

Re: two questions

[benhaha]

"the total lack of regulation on the internet has led to a situation where anybody can say anything about anybody with no redress."

you say this as if it's a bad thing. seriously: so what? are people stupid enough to believe everything they read online? if so, well, serves 'em right.

So Alice posts something defamatory and untrue about Bob, Charlie reads it, and is stupid enought to believe it. Bob loses custom and therefore money.

According to you, it serves Bob right because Charlie is stupid.

This is insightful now?

Re:Slight exaggerations.. [RTFA]

[Ethidium]

From the article, about halfway down:

"""
January 2003 draft envisioned regulating only "professional on-line media." Two months later, a March 2003 draft dropped the word "professional" and intentionally covered all "online media" of any type.
"""

Thus, blogs.

This might be nice to provide regardless

[iabervon]

This would actually be a good feature of online publications. There is already often support for feedback. It would be worthwhile to add support for verified responses from the entities discussed (possibly leading off-site, so that if MS complains about you, and someone complains about MS, it's MS's responsibility to handle the second complaint).

If you think about it, "reply" is what most publications actually most frequently want, and the offended party is generally not forthcoming. You always see "(Company) was not available for comment", and whenever you hear about a GPL violation, people eagerly await the violator's response. For all of these SCO stories, my first thought is "What does SCO have to say about that?"

The hard part, of course, is accurately identifying the party with the right to reply, since it would be bad to accept somebody else's comments instead of the actual party involved.

In an ideal situation

[phorm]

This would cover the "right-of-reply" to legitimate users of electronic mediums who wish to rebut inflammatory or negetive comments about themselves/their company/their product, etc - which would be a good thing.

The problem is, that the onlne would is far, far, from ideal. Taking slashdot as an example... everyone has a voice, even the annoying little AC trolls. Now, that's great for those that have something interesting/important to say, and slashdot has a nice moderation system to allow us to filter the good from the bad.

However, a lot of online systems don't have a ratings system, or would find it just too much of a hassle to include/support. I see a few solutions, but I'm not sure if they're workable.

For sites that must offer replies, force a registration system that must be stronly legitimized. Yes, again, added hassle sometimes to add such a system, but at least it gets rid of the drive-by-trollings by making trolling inconvient as well. Couple that with a signup requiring a "I agree to terms" page, and you're set. Really, most sites allowing comments do have a method for user authentication anyways. Still, I can't see all sites out there allowing this.

And personally, I think whomever drafted such a law should be forced to shave with bad razors while swimming in the middle of shark-infested waters. I'd rather have them feed our local marine life than the trolls that would benefit from such idiot rules...

Americans missing the point

[hellfire]

First, I'm an American, don't go calling me some stupid European who knows nothing about the USA. I'm a smart american who knows how stupid americans are ;) (ment with humor).

Secondly, American's are saying this is "unconstitutional" or "it shifts costs of replies to the owner of the site."

Show me an amendment that grants the right of the original poster of a comment on the internet the right to not have to display a rebuttal? That's insane. There is no such constitutional amendment preventing this. In fact this is more constitutional than unconstitutional. I would be guarenteed the right to "free speech" in responding to my accusers. It would have a chilling effect on media, but this is a GOOD thing. People should not go around accusing others of poor decision making without proof. If fact, would media be better if it were about multiple parties sitting down and discussing the issue rather than getting one editorial point of view?

Also, this is from an editorial point of view. Note in the United States if I said "Michael Jackson is a child molester" and this had serious effects on his reputation and I had no proof, Mike can already sue me under Slander/libel law. If I come out and say "George Bush has made terrible decisions and here is what they are," I would be rather elated to find George posting on my website a rebuttal. I could then engage him in direct discussion. If I reported on some joe shmoe down the street who had an internet connection but no site and criticized him for his lawn care, then perhaps he should get the right to rebutt so he can tell everyone why rather than get just one point of view.

Finally, if you are posting about your people in your neighborhood and how dumb they are for doing this or that, and they don't have the ability to reply on your website, who does that hurt? It hurts them! You shouldn't be posting such information without proof to back it up and if they can rebutt you they should have the right. Otherwise its a one sided publication, and not a discussion.

What's nice about this proposal is that it would turn media into an open forum. Yanno.... like slashdot.

And you would think Slashdotters would be all over that idea.

Re:Americans missing the point

[NavySpy]

Show me an amendment that grants the right of the original poster of a comment on the internet the right to not have to display a rebuttal?

I'm sorry, but that has to be one of the silliest things I've read this month.

If you libel someone, you can be sued, and rightfully so. But criticism is a long way from libel. No one has the right to have their message posted on my website. It's my website, and I'll put whatever I want on it, as long as it isn't illegal. And it isn't illegal to say, on my website, that my neighbors lawn is ugly. The notion that, if I say that, my neighbor has the right to +force+ me to post his rebuttal on +my+ website is simply ludicrous.

As for your quote above, once I actually parsed out the double negative, I had to shake my head. Everyone has the right +not+ to do something. You always have a right +not+ to do what you don't want to do with your property. Good grief, that's like arguing that I don't have the right to keep people out of my house. I can't point to an amendment that says I don't have the right to not keep you out of my house, but surely you don't meant to argue that anyone can waltz into my house anytime they feel like it.

Re:Americans missing the point

[xutopia]

I couldn't agree more with you there my friend! :)

I'm half/half North American/European and lived half my life in each continent so I see how things work on both sides of the Atlantic.

Right of reply is the most constitutional and democratic thing ever! I'll tell you why Reagan said it didn't promote free speech.

He started out in the media industry : radio host and actor. His friends in the media would say whatever pleased him to get him elected in return of favors like politcal protection.

Bush and his CNN/Foxnews friends certainly played the Americans latel. All forms of democratic dialogue was quelled by the Bush administration and their media friends.

Outside the US we've heard Rumsfeld has ties with Halliburton (even gets a few millions every couple years) and Bush in oil and media. We also heard the facts regarding Bush's grandaddy and the Nazi family ties. We also heard about the forged documents the Bush administration came up with way before it even made news in the US (I heard about it two days after the US had given it to UNMOVIC).

People in the US are blatently disinformed and laws like ROR are only meant to stop misinformation from happening.

When you have corruption (ala Microsoft and SCO) Slashdot gives the ROR to the people and that is why it is so popular. Actually the papers in France (there are a ton just in Paris) love the ROR on editorials. Their sales go up whenever they have a reply in one of their papers. They make more sales because people love listening to a dialogue rather than a mind numbing CNN/Foxnews.

In most European countries the head of state often goes on TV to talk to people and often live. They answer questions from the public and sometimes have to admit their own fallacies.

Has anyone seen Bush accept a challenge from the people? The only interviews he had were as close as rigged as you could have. He has all his answers readied for the prepared question we ask him. This is not dialogue, this is organized monologue.

ROR is for you the people.

Re:Americans missing the point

[Bake]

I'll probably get modded down to absolute zero, but I've got some karma to burn...

I'm a smart american who knows how stupid americans are ;)
(emphasis mine)

We have a word for that you know.

It's called "Canadian". :-)

Relax, it's funny, laugh!

Re:Americans missing the point

[thebigmacd]

Hahahaha I admit I am Canadian, but still for anyone that's just too funny. :)

Re:Americans missing the point

[hellfire]

That's an oldie but goodie for me... and personally, I agree!!!! ;)

*constantly eyeing the northern border to see when he can make a dash across*

Re:Americans missing the point

[hellfire]

I'm sorry, but if you are asking I leave because I'm exercising those oh so valued 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech, perhaps it is you who should vacate this land? :)

Re:Americans missing the point

[evilviper]

If I reported on some joe shmoe down the street who had an internet connection but no site and criticized him for his lawn care, then perhaps he should get the right to rebutt

Rebuttle: You suck the sweat off a dead man's nuts... Publish _that_!

</sarcasm>
</devilsadvocate>

Re:Americans missing the point

[NavySpy]

Huh? I didn't insult the guy. Read my post again. I did say what he said was silly, but I didn't insult the guy.

In addition, I did address his point rather, well, pointedly.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Note, too, that I didn't post anonymously, as you did.

Re:Americans missing the point

[xutopia]

see isn't right of reply wonderful :-)

Re:Americans missing the point

[NavySpy]

It's not a right I exercised, but rather a privilege bestowed on me by the good people here at slashdot. ;-)

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[junkgrep]

Hello? When I disagree with you, I am not obligated to then repeat your response word for word out loud for all to hear. If you want to respond, you respond in whatever forum is open to you. THAT is free speech, not some ridiculous law that says I have to pay for your response.

Re:you've got to understand - the eu is a dictator

[Larsing]

the day the uk joins the eu is the day (hand on heart) i live my country

Well then, off you go! Shoo, shoo! You already joined it years ago when you signed the Maastricht Treaty!

Yes, recent polls have shown that Britons are the EU citizens most unaware of the union...

Does the burden fall evenly?

[theflea]

Let's say XYZ oil company says in the public relations section of their website that "we really care about the environment".

Can they be obligated to post a link to my blog if I rebut? I mean, all I have to do is list the facts why I think they're not telling the truth...."XYZ oil company wouldn't violate environmental laws so often if they really cared about the environment....".

I mean, it sounds like the opinion-expressing blogger is expected to live up to a higher standard.

Some people argue that I just have to give a link to an opposing opinion, but why should there be extra hurdles to jump if I want to just say something? There are already slander and libel laws, right? Why should my opinion have to be validated as factual?

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[jmccay]

Interesting. So, if a Conservative Christian magazine writes a pro-life article, then an abortionist can write back defending their position? I think that sucks. People read certain magazines, newspapers, or websites becuase they like the point of view of the news source (or in some cases to keep in touch with what the competition likes). They don't want their territory invaded.

Dalzell: Internet = broad, Radio = narrow

[prizog]

The article cited Dalzell's opinion in the CDA case, but didn't explain the most important part: the difference between the internet and radio. If I don't like your weblog entry, I can post my own entry in my own weblog criticising it. If I don't like your radio comment on me, what can I do? I can't start my own radio station, because there's limited spectrum. The limited amount of spectrum is only reason the FCC can regulate the content of radio in the first place. So, a right of reply make sense in the radio context, where otherwise you might have no forum. But on the internet, everyone has a forum, so a right of reply is unneeded.

I've also seen some people here claim that it's not an imposition on freedom of speech because you can still publish what you want, or that it *is* an imposition because it will have a "chilling effect." I think these people miss the point. The reason it violates freedom of speech, is because it's *compelled speech* -- it's the government mandating that I have to publish things I disagree with. In radio, where there's limited spectrum, everyone has to sacrifice. But on the 'net, there's no need for that.

Re:Private property rights.

[Larsing]

Much appreciated, thank you! It will make some mighty interesting bedside reading... ,-)

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[junkgrep]

Who is preventing people from telling their side of story? If this is about people who are upset that no one will listen to their side of the story: I'm sorry, that's not a free speech issue. There is no right to be heard.

A modest charge for the linking....

[lysium]

This is a tactic from any business that has to comply with requests for information: Administrative Fees.
Let's say you have a blog with medium recognition. You get a request for someone's response to an opinion you published. Since the request is being done by your web design staff (i.e. yourself), who have terribly important duties to attend to, a modest "administrative fee" would probably be legal in a situation like this. $10-$20 dollars for time and effort seems right.

Trolls would be discouraged, more information would flow, and your pocket just might get fatter (or at least deflate slower) in the process.

----------

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

[Jeff DeMaagd]

To be fair, both the pro- and anti-American sentiments get pretty d@mn jingoistic. I know both groups have their reasons but the stands they take can easily reach absurd levels.

Re:Newspapers

[junkgrep]

The power to publish your thoughts is still there. You can post whatever you want. But like all good debates, the other side gets a voice too...

Back here in reality, debates seem to work just fine where the attacks and responses appear in different forums (like various op eds to battling press releases). There's no reaosn I should have to pay for your response just because I feel like speaking my mind, and put money and effort into getting my words out there. Getting your response out there is YOUR job, and YOUR money and effort to spend.

Un American

[jafac]

This would put Fox News out of business.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[dtr21]

No - not at all, as there would be no criticism in that article, merely a point of view. On the other hand, if the Christian magazine wrote an article claiming that "some pro-abortion group were a bunch of smelly weenies", or similar, then they have "criticised" the group, and the group is entitied to respond.

The law doesn't force any magazine to host a debate, merely that if they are critical of someone, then that person has the chance to defend themselves.

Bad idea

[DWIM]

This is an inappropriate problem for government to try to solve -- i.e. the lack of debate in some public discourses. Consider this from a non-electronic media point of view. I get my permit/permission/whatever to stand at the town square and vent my mind for an hour. To apply this law consistently, the town would be required to provide the same venue for someone wanting to make a rebuttal, if they feel they have been slandered. Now most towns will do this, but to do it so that the same audience hears both sides, they would need to publish the pending corner diatribe and solicit rebuttals. That would probably require a pre-screening of my speech, which I could then not deviate from significantly w/o tramping on someone's new-found rights. Imagine MLK giving his "I have a dream" speech and it having to be followed immediately by a tirade from the KKK about how he got it all wrong (defending the white man, for instance). I am not arguing that debate is not good, but nothing in the process guarantees that any debate will occur.

If the town square scenario isn't convincing, how about any venue in which, say, a nobel prize winner is invited to speak and that person goes on a long discourse about how humans are damaging the earth, that the fault is with the evil oil companies, big business, automobiles, Bush, whatever. To be consistent, whoever he lambasts should have a right to respond at the same venue. Ideally, that might be great, but perhaps the folks hosting the talk cannot afford (in time and money) to provide for this reply and provide the original guest with sufficient time to present his ideas.

Some comedians are really just thinly-vieled political commentators (Carlan, Gallhager, for instance). At times, very funny, at others, more sobering and thought-provoking than anything else. Should they have to provide for a rebuttal?

The bottom line is, you can't mandate debate. There is no way to ensure it will actually happen. More than likely, you are going to get two pontificating positions, with no real give and take or exchange of ideas.

Some will say this law doesn't apply to the forums I described. I say that is invalid because you should be guided by principles and there is no particular reason to control electronic or print media over in-person, vocal media.

Not insightful, moronic

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you do not want the company's reply to be seen, then you are stifling *their* free speech,"

How? You mean the company doesn't have the resources to get their messages out?

Even a child could tell that this is essentially a way to stop people from criticizing business and corporate interests.

This has nothing to do with "free speech"; it is the opposite of free speech; it assumes a corporation has the same rights as a person. Disgusting.

Re:Not insightful, moronic

[Arioch of Chaos]

"If you do not want the company's reply to be seen, then you are stifling *their* free speech,"

How? You mean the company doesn't have the resources to get their messages out?

It could indeed be very hard to reach the same audience.

What he said

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Censorship gets all the attention, but it's not the worst abridgement of press freedom.

The worst is when you're told, under threat of force, to put something on your newspaper or your web site.

To see the chilling effect, imagine this: you criticize, say, neoconservatives on your full-time blog. The law requires you to publish a reply. Who gets to reply? Remember, if you guess wrong, the meat grinder of the legal system awaits you.

Google for the history of the Fairness Doctrine, an older FCC regulation requiring TV stations to offer equal time to opposite sides of an issue. It's not completely comparable ("equal time" on a web site is MUCH cheaper), but the effect was that the mass media backed off on the most controversial topics.

Re:What he said

[Dr.Hair]

Fairness Doctrine, which was killed by the Reagan Administration.

Equal Time Rule, which dated back to the Radio Act of 1927 and is now Section 315 of the Communications Act. (I think this is the one that established the FCC itself.)

Re:Headline ,isleading, this is far from a done de

[fname]

Well, the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Excepting broadcasters due to the scarcity of spectrum, that means the government cannot compel publications to print or not print anything. The article actually discusses a Florida law guaranteeing right-of-reply on 1st amendment grounds.

Essentially, passage of this law necessitates government intrusion into the editorial process. Instead of the publisher deciding what is appropriate to print, a government official (judge ot bureaucrat) will make that decision. So long, freedom of the press!

Anyways, the 1st amendment absolutely guarantees you the right to say (just about) anything you wish; but it does not provide you with the resources to do so. You are free to publish your own response, but requiring your adversary to pay for that cost is the opposite of what the 1st amendment guarantees.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In essence, the government is prohibited from exercising editorial control over the media. Seems like a good idea to me! Say whatever you want, but don't expect those who disagree with you to publicize your views.

You're absolutely right

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

These might be sticky questions, but the total lack of regulation on the internet has led to a situation where anybody can say anything about anybody with no redress.

Yes, this has been a problem for a while and is getting worse.

The responses to this article are, alas, all too predictable. "It violates my civil liberties!" they cry. "It's abusing freedom of speech!" "You couldn't enforce it anyway, because it would cost too much!" "How do I check someone is who they say they are?" Do they really believe that no-one's thought of this stuff before?

Well, guess what, kids. With freedom comes responsibility. We can agree that you have the right to say what you wish, but only if you accept the consequences of what you say. If I suffer harm, physical or mental, because you said something about me that wasn't fair, then you owe me fair compensation for that.

This sort of action was inevitable, and is a direct and proportionate response to many people abusing the privilege of free speech on the Internet. The "I should be able to say anything I like without fear of response!" advocates should consider themselves lucky that European governments aren't considering a scheme that removes anonymity on the Internet entirely and opens the online world to prosecution under existing libel laws.

(No, you couldn't get absolutely everyone, as a few people would know enough to remain truly anonymous. Technologically, you could easily get the vast majority, though.)

This is not a play school. People on-line can and do get away with mass fraud, posing as doctors and offering poor medical advice, destroying rival businesses' reputations through posting completely untrue horror stories, and more. None of this is justifiable under the banner of "free speech", and nothing in the European proposal restricts your free speech. It simply means you'll be held accountable for what you say, and why the hell shouldn't you be?

...Perhaps containing the seed of a very good idea

[hains]

Post them all, and let Google sort them out.

Precisely. All the law really needs to allow is the right of the allegedly aggrieved party to link to the allegedly offending page in the alleged offender's site. I don't think that this is too burdensome -- IMHO the "right" to prevent people from linking to pages in your website is somewhat questionable to start with.

That way, anybody who wants to evaluate the reliability of a webpage can simply go to Google, search for links to that page, and read what those linkers have to say.

It doesn't have to be made easy

[NoMercy]

You can have a tiny link for replying, then someone can send you an email and say they want to have it posted on the website, if there even aware they can, and then all you need to do is throw it in with your next blog/etc.

Should stimulate Euro IT Economy

[DrSkwid]

Because Innovation is not doing it on it's own.

Legislation usually steps in to take up the slack.

Now if *every* website was retroactively forced to carry a guestbook imagine the delight of the scores of newly trained HTML monkeys being churned out day after day from 16+ colleges across continental Europe.

Next step is mandating that the posters use some sort of Europe wide centralised identification database to validate them.

One of the early applications will be chat rooms where the participants will be validated as children.

We'd then have a situation where anyone can say anything about anyone but as a matter of public record and where both parties are validated.

If I meet a new person I can then review their posting record and make judgements about them.

The implication being that having to live in the open tends to make people more honest. Besides you'll be able to cross reference the record of the people making any accusations to see if it's a habit etc.etc.

As for my position well, I want either the freedom to be anonymous or for everyone to be forced into the open.
If it thought it was feasable I'd support the idea of a droid that records your every move used in Ian M. Banks' sci-fi novels concerning "The Culture".

If I can access the every move and utterence of *everyone* else and they have access to mine then where's the problem?

Sadly the implementation must be all or nothing from day 1 as the evolutionary steps make the place worse not better from the disparity on who can watch whom.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Jondor]

point 2:

>Hyperlinking to a reply is acceptable. "It may be >considered sufficient to publish (the reply) or make >available a link to it" from the spot of the original >mention.

Basicly they have the right to write their story but not the right to use your press.. eh.. diskspace/bandwide

This could be good.

[Rip!ey]

I think people should go and read the proposal.

Principles concerning the right of reply in the on-line environment

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. [Emphasis mine]

Right. That clears most of the bloggers, amongst others.

Now just imagine for one second, that a company like Microsoft who has a habit of posting much FUD on its web sites regarding Linux, and Open sourced Software in general, might be required to post, or at least link directly (and prominantly) to, replies which refute many of their claims.

Sure, this proposed convention might have some downsides, but it could also serve a very worthy purpose.

Re:Private property rights.

[oxygene2k2]

apart that laws again slander and libel are much more hassle (you need money, it might take months, the outcome is unclear) than a directive that encourages the "speaker" to publish that damn URL you provide and be done with it.

aren't your courts busy enough already?

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

[kisak]

Neo Nazi's are forbidden to speak freely about their beliefs.

Neo-Nazis in Germany can go to the European Human Rigths court in Strasbourg and make a case against the German goverment if they feel that their free speech rights are violated. This is exactly equivalent to some organization taking a complain to the supreem court against a law that they feel is in violation of the First Amendment. If the German goverment loses their case, they will have to change their law on this issue. I don't think such a case has been brought against the German goverment (it might have, I just don't know about it) but such a court case would be quite difficult since you also have to discuss the rights of the jews that are misrepresented and also the German history's link with Nazism. And of course the muddy issue of what constitute a true "belief", what is really "propaganda", and who has the power to "write history".

If you feel strongly for those poor neo-nazis you can even file a case yourself to the ECHR.

Big Mouth!

[jefu]

Damn, you ruined it.

I was going to patent the Google idea. Force everyone to link to my site who says anything even remotely non-complimentary and I've got it made. Next time I'll try to get the patent filed as soon as I read the slashdot story.

a smart move... with an important caveat

[vnv]

The move to 'right of reply' by the Council of Europe is a godsend for objective news and fair reporting. And this is good for all people who read information on the web and use it in their daily lives. In America, where there is no 'right of reply' almost all the mainstream websites contain false information. Imagine if there was a way to put more objective facts in the news instead of the politico-spin that Americans are force fed? Many blogs contain absolutely incorrect information about companies, happenings in the world, other people, etc. And where there is just 'one side', there is no dialogue, no conversation. And when someone can see an entire conversation, it makes the subject more clear and understandable than just seeing one side. Let's say your ex-girlfriend puts some poisonous stuff about you in her blog. Which just happens to be read by your mutual friends. Wouldn't you like to reply? Wouldn't you want to tell it like it is? The 'right of reply' makes people think twice about slandering other people. It makes people consider what they are going to say as they could easily be shown to be liars, manipulators, etc. The caveat is that for 'right of reply' to work for ordinary people, more liberal 'freedom of information' acts must be passed. Governments and corporations will have to open up their records so that objective facts can be accessed. And it is very difficult to tell what will happen here. In America, Bush has rolled back the Freedom of Information movement by 20 years at least. Of course, Bush is in the position of greatest danger of running into problems as his administration has little basis on objective facts. So the chances of 'right of reply' happening in the US are slim to none, at least with the current administration. Overall, this is a great move by Europe. Perhaps they will even start getting tough on the US vis-a-vis privacy laws instead of giving the US more and more extensions and loopholes. Provided there are liberal freedom of information laws to back it up, 'right of reply' will help build human communities that are far more human than what we have today.

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

[rossz]

The problem with the European Convention on Human Rights is they included loopholes for just about everything so even the most despotic government can stifle all freedom and still abide by that piece of paper.

You should read it sometime. It's a masterpiece of absolute EU bureaucratic bullshit - promising everything, delivering nothing.

What about the denial of shouting?

[CrazyJim0]

Two games corporations play on their blogs:

#1 They delete posts by people that disagree.

#2 They use smoke and mirror shouting.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[jefu]

How many idiotic proposed bills get canned in the U.S every year?

Nowhere near enough.

This already exists in the dead tree news...

[Kindaian]

Why would the internet be diferent?

Get real and do real laws, not laws of no significance...

This goes further

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do the lawyers send the C&D letter, but you also have to at least link to their letter on your site. I'm looking forward to church-affiliated web sites having to give equal time to Satanists. This ought to be fun.

Re:No Free Speech in Europe

[ThaReetLad]

Right on brother!! Amen!!

Re:legally, there is no such thing as "British Law

[terrymr]

Contracts generally don't claim to be legal under any particular law. I think what you are referring to is the clause that specifies the jurisidiction for any court actions arising under the contract. You are right that stating that it would be governed by British law wouldn't be worth anything. However it wouldn't necessarily invalidate the rest of the contract as there are other means of determining jurisdiction for lawsuts (such as where the contract was signed for example). Usually any bad wording in a contract leaves you wide open to having that part essentially rewritten by a judge who would try to determine what the parties intended when they entered into the contract.

Bad, bad, bad idea for blogs

[bildstorm]

Ok, so let's say that I'm Joe Consumer who doesn't like a product made by Corporation X. I complain about the product, and the people I had to deal with in getting the product sorted, etc.

Now, let's say that instead of acting as a single corporation, I get replies from manufacturers of the product, product testers, and maybe the customer support person, her supervisor, etc., etc. Any large corporation could find a way to effectively reqard their internal people and swamp me, with my little blog, with lots of replies.

Better yet, let's put this forward to political views! Now smaller groups who don't like what a large group does or says now has to post responses? Right!

I guess this is very pro-democracy in ideal, but it also sounds like tyranny of the majority, with my individual rights of expression possibly being trampled.

(Passing sweeping legislation is often like using a nuclear warhead to kill a fly. Yeah, the fly dies, but so do many others, and it takes a far longer time to clean up the mess.

Re:Bad, bad, bad idea for blogs

[vnv]

I think there is also a mindshift that has to happen with Blogs. Many people view them as their own private rant space. However, almost all of them are public on the Internet, open and available to all, including search engines. This is the equivalent of posting your private rant in millions of places all over the world. And obviously if you posted something incorrect and negative about someone or something, they would want the ability to reply to that, seeing as you effectively made your opinion known to potentially millions of people. The same as if someone posted something horrible about you. Maybe all your friends decide to shun you because of it. Maybe all your customers decide to stop buying from your company because of it.

'Right of reply' is far better than what is in place today which is the "nuke" approach -- get a court order and kill the entire website, often by going to the ISP and not the website operator.

Yes, going to 'right-of-reply' is a major shift, I admit. The immediate fall out will be substantive as we don't know in advance "how much" feedback/right-of-reply is appropriate. However, I think the direction that society ends up with 'right of reply' is a better direction than 'i'll say whatever shit i want and you don't get to say anything'. And especially outside of the personal Blog space, the effect on news reporting has the potential to be a very large positive.

Re:Bad, bad, bad idea for blogs

[bildstorm]

Two points on this.

1.) If you're stupid enough to pay attention to a blog as a news reporting source, then you should be very aware of the imbalance of reporting. For news organisations this makes sense, but I'd rather see it as an obligation to effectively receive news credentials.

2.) I think every web site should have a valid method for communicating with the host, but to enforce that everybody post replies to their comments is pretty ridiculous. Honestly, given the amount of time I have to deal with my own site on a daily basis, I'd rather that someone file suit against me than me being required to post something. It's one thing if they request a retraction, etc. Cool. But for me to have to post is stupid.

TOS - only a link is required

[morzel]

It is specifically stated in the proposal that a hypertext link to the rebuttal (which does not need to reside on your server) is enough - this is not the type of thing that will kill your TOS or bandwidth.

The current law for offline media also mandates that the size of such a rebuttal should be 'reasonable' (ie: no free full-page ads) with regards to the media in which it is published.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Tony-A]

Response from _____
*** expletives deleted ***
*** goatse link deleted ***
*** 39,999.5 pages deleted ***

Another way for government to control our lives

[eniacx]

I can say whatever I want, and I don't need to provide anyone with a forum for rebuttle.

If I am a slanted publication, it will soon be obvious and I will not succeed in comparison to more balanced news sources. For instance, look at the success of the Fox News Channel.

It is an individual's responsibility for acquiring information from several sources in order to gain an understanding of what is "really" going on.

The Internet is free (as in freedom).
It will be painful to see this freedom slowly ripped away from the people who embrace it.

Re:Newspapers

[Spellbinder]

what do you think those comments are for???

No

[morzel]

You can not demand to publish a rebuttal for any publication that is carrying a position that you're not endorsing... You can only get a rebuttal published if the article:

Names you personally (either individual or as a legal entity/company)

Contains criticisms or facts concerning you that you feel have been misrepresented. Since the power of the media to personally attack someone (be it an individual/company) is very great, this law warrants your right to having your side of the story published as well.

Re:No

[jmccay]

So basically, what you're saying is that if a rapist and murder has something published about him, or her, in the a daily paper, then he, or she, is intitled to have there side printed if they have been misrepresented and/or named in the article.
Can you see what this would do to papers? Paper A publishes story Z about person 1 saying the person has been arrested and charge with murder. Person one thinks, or knows, he, or she, is innocent, so they demand that they be allowed to print a responce. This is basically the rights being granted. This could get WAY out of hand, and this would remove court cases from the court room into the court of public opinion--even more so than they are today.

Re:No

[morzel]

That person is entitled to a published response if they have been misrepresented and named in the article
In practice, this does not happen often because in most cases newspapers do not print the names of the person(s) involved for these kind of stories. Allowing any media to publish whatever they want about somebody who is being charged with somehting, without giving that same person the right to a reply on the same forum is imho a lot more damaging to any court case because it will skew the public opinion a lot more. This up to the point that a fair trial is no longer possible...

All these kind of laws do is entitle anyone to the right to respond to published criticism and allegations, even if they normally would not have the financial means to get their message out to the same audience. Anything else would favour the rich and powerful of this world.

Re:No

[FeloniousPunk]

So you say, that a victim of libel should not have the right to fight back, just because *you* think that the victim has lost it's reputation anyway? hmmm...not a really strong argument :-)
Did you bother to read my post? Try again, this time for comprehension. Note that I state that slander and libel are crimes (and are considered such by law), and properly fought back against in the courts. Where it will matter, and damaged reputations can actually be vindicated.

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

[wfberg]

Well said. Most of the EU member states have enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights [hri.org] into law.

Here is a more exhaustive list of all human/civil/political rights treaties/conventions/agreements/declarations the EU countries adhere to.

In Europe there's a hell of a lot more legislation guaranteeing human and civil rights than a constitution and a hand full of amendmends.. ;-)

Do they provide the bandwidth and storage space

[Archfeld]

needed for said rebuttals ? and where do I send the bill ? Otherwise welcome to the offshore hosting option, but of course they will make that illegal soon too.
The US HAS its' problems, but I am still glad to live here, if we could just get someone to take King George off our hands we could 'disappear' A$$crap and go back to being a normally dysfunctional nation.

Re:legally, there is no such thing as "British Law

[TheCrazyFinn]

British generally equals Scottish+English. Note that much of English law covers Scotland too.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[clambake]

Your response can not exceed the length of the original article. It is also required to be printed with the same font-size as the original.

Ok, I'll bite... My response would be:

The home address of the reporter who wrote this story is:
123 Fake Street
Anywhere, Fooland 12456

Her phone number is:
(666)555-4444

Her private email address is:
spamme@newspaper.com

And finally, I heard a rumor the other day that she likes to act out stalker/rapist/child-molestoer scenerios with strangers (particularly ex-cons) and likes to lie and say that she isn't enjoying it, or that she doesn't want it, when she really does. That same rumor mentioned that she likes to convince young mothers to abort thier fetuses, and then she takes them home to desicrate all while laughing at the Christian God. She also, supposedly, according to rumor, enjoys pissing on the Koran while masturbating and shouting horrible curses at Mohammed.

I don't know if any of this is true or not, it's just a bunch of rumors, after all, but I'm sure you can ask her yourself and find out.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[TheCrazyFinn]

And that freedom is not guaranteed by Law, but by Slashdot's editors. You post here upon CmdrTaco's sufferance.

The Law says another can't stop you from speaking, not that you can require another to pay for your speech.

You have freedom of speech from your PC because YOU PAY for that access. You OWN your Presses under this analogy. One of the great gifts the Internet gave Freedom of Speech is the reduction of the cost of self-publishing. We're now back to the equivalent of Regency-era pamphleteering, which always was a great example of Freedom of Speech (Much as the prosecution of the Radicals was a warning against government power to restrict speech).

Using the government to hijack another's presses is restriction of speech (Since I also have the right to choose what I shall speak) not an increase.

Doesn't sound too bad to me...

[Garridan]

I think this sounds like a nicely balanced law. Not only would it force Microsoft, etc., to post replies, it shouldn't effect sites like Slashdot at all -- you can already reply to anything anyway! While a post from Microsoft might get modded down, it'd be pretty easy to prove that that was an action of the readers, not the site owners, and that the post is still accessible.

Corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why corporations deserve to have rights. They're entities formed for the sole purpose of massing as many funds as possible. Not a noble ideal that deserves any sort of protection under the law if you ask me.

Re:Corporations

[Carnivorous Carrot]

A corporation is derived of individuals, from whom those rights come. That you are a business doesn't mean someone can shut you up.

Re:Newspapers

[bobtheheadless]

A good point.
But lets imagine a case where a huge, powerful firm makes claims relating to an individual or small firm.

The individual/small firm probably doesn't HAVE the money, time, or power to reply effectively. Even a lawsuit may not rectify the damages, nor deter the large firm. The damage is already done. But your view on that depends on your view of "survival of the fittest".

To overgeneralize, it seems like a good idea when a big guy beats on a little guy, but a bad idea when a little guy tries to beat on a big guy. The policy isn't just about an individual writing his/her thoughts.

(And although I think its a good idea in theory, I also think that the implementation and enforcement of such a policy would be quite difficult and just result in more lawsuits in reality, as you'd say.)

The road to hell is paved with ideas like these.

[Facekhan]

It sounds nice on the surface but what about situation where a particular person or organization is criticized and the people doing the criticizing don't want to hear any response. Or they do not even want to risk being identified by that person or group.

Do abusive husbands and parents get a right to respond on support group msg boards. Do abusive cult gulag schools get a right to respond to their critics who are so traumatized by the experience of being held against their will for years that they are afraid of being identified and kidnapped by the cult again?

Re:America seems really terrible...

[Kinniken]

Not to mention that the proposal comes not from the European Union (EU), but from the Council of Europe (CoE), a separate organisation (which has the same flag as the EU to keep things simple ;-) )
The CoE includes 45 countries
(nearly the whole of Europe, including Russia) versus 15 (25 next years) for the EU, and is much, much looser organisation - certainly not a "quasi-governmental body" as claimed by C/Net. Merely a talking-shop and a diplomatic forum.

There is one

[aepervius]

You are all forgetting this is not the country of free speech, but the countries of debate. We have simply another view on speech, that is, that unheard speech without debate is like a falling tree in a forest : unheard, noise without sense. We rather have logical, well made debate than free speech. We do not ask you [the US] to like it, or to approve it, we [as citizen] want it so. If every news paper were spitting half assed lies about me, I would like to have the right to make rectification rather than make a libel process or have my own propespect printed out. But I perfectly understand that in a litigious all-over-the-board free speech society you rather have lawyer handle the job.

PS: you did understand that this wasn't about forcing citizen to accept reply from other citizen or forcing their opinion on others, didn't you ? This is about forcing www media outlet to have the same law as newspaper outlet. That is media which have an enormous coverage in comparison to a citizen must allow him the same coverage under certain circumstance , like report of negative info on the former.

Re:There is one

[junkgrep]

No, I'm not forgetting that. And indeed, the liberal scientific values of "open, diverse, and endless criticism" and "no special authority" are exactly what I'm defending.

If every news paper were spitting half assed lies about me, I would like to have the right to make rectification rather than make a libel process or have my own propespect printed out.

As far as I can tell, that's mostly because you're lazy, not because of any well justified philosophy or cultural value.

But I perfectly understand that in a litigious all-over-the-board free speech society you rather have lawyer handle the job.

In our society, words are not thought crimes, or doubleungoodthink. People speak their minds, and other people have the ability to decide for themselves whether they are speaking bullshit: and the ethic behind this is that everyone is suppoed to be critical, and check for other information. Some people here are lazy too, of course, but it's the laziness that's the problem, not that other people won't do your work for you.

This is about forcing www media outlet to have the same law as newspaper outlet. That is media which have an enormous coverage in comparison to a citizen must allow him the same coverage under certain circumstance, like report of negative info on the former.

Yes, I understand. Can you explain to me why "negative info" is bad unless it causes someone material harm (in which case they already have the right to seek redress?)

Re:There is one

[Alsee]

you did understand that this wasn't about forcing citizen to accept reply from other citizen or forcing their opinion on others, didn't you ? This is about forcing www media outlet to have the same law as newspaper outlet.

But the WWW is not a newspaper outlet. The story specificly mentioned blogs. This law would apply to little Mary-Sue in fourth grade who gets one of those free webpages.

That is media which have an enormous coverage in comparison to a citizen must allow him the same coverage under certain circumstance

The internet is NOT a media where one person has an enormous advantage. Everyone is perfectly capable of putting up their own webpage. And they can generally do so for free. A homeless guy can go into a library, log on, and get a free page at lunarpages.com or geocities.com, or any number of other free websites/free blog sites.

-

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[nempo]

yupp, just like the USA.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[lolol]

Wrong. Anyway, hearing different opinions will help people understanding - listening to the voices that tell what you want to hear will let you stay being "dumb". It's so comfortable not to get confronted with other views, that's correct, indeed.

re: two questions

[ed.han]

frankly, i don't think it's insightful either, but hey, i didn't moderate it...

so are you arguing that the tiny fraction of people who are marginal enough to be swayed by something they read on the internet is going to in any meaningful way impact a business's sales? b/c i gotta say, someone who's prone to being influenced that easily wasn't exactly a loyal customer to start.

ed

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Ataru]

Only if you dissed a public figure.

so let's say

[falsification]

So let's say I'm a Jew in Europe with a web site. I publish a criticism of a Holocaust denier. Then, the Holocaust denier gets a "right of response" on my web site?

Like hell.

depends on how it is written/implemented

[73939133]

This doesn't have to be particularly onerous. The "right to reply" could perhaps simply be implemented by pointing to a discussion group on some other server where people can sign in and respond or by putting in a link to the organization being criticized.

In good ol' American entrepreneurial fashion, this need will probably be met by simple, advertising supported "right to reply" sites that you can point to.

In any case, it's just a proposal. Unlike the US, where the Communications Decency Act actually needed to get struck down by judges, it isn't even a law. McCullagh is on some kind of libertarian crusade, and when he isn't out bashing Democrats, he likes to bash Europe even more. My suggestion would be to ignore him--he has nothing of substance to say (and he is welcome to respond to this posting by hitting the "Reply" button below).

Re:No Free Speech in Europe

[newspeeker]

What are we talking about, is the right to a reply really a violation of the right of free speech?
I bet the open source community will create a "reply application" for use on websites in less than an a week if necessary.
And I don't get this preoccupation with the (lack of a) First Amendment (in Europe) at all. It might be hard to believe but we really have a free press in Europe, you know!

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[IHateUniqueNicks]

I dunno, it sounds like a good way to stifle the original speech to me. If some newspaper says something about me (true or not) that I don't want to be heard, suddenly they're responsible for printing my 3000 page reply each time?

Guess how many newspapers would still say things about me after that?

Re:Stupid canuck

[Tony-A]

Why is the government in the business of regulating speech by private citizens?
It's not regulating speech, it's regulating the soapboxes from which the speeches are made. Because of the easy opportunity for rebuttal, it would actually encourage free speech.

Where's the Actual Proposal?

[serutan]

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?

Mountains from molehills

[Tony-A]

If I libel or slander someone I can expect to show up in court.

With this law I would have to incur this small amount of work even when I'm right and they're wrong. Why should I have to turn over my forum or take my viewers out of my forum just because someone claims to be wronged? [Emphasis added]

Seems better if you can keep it all molehill sized. Just add a "Dissenting opinions" section. I imagine you'd be ok just counting disagreeing opinions in most cases.

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

[Carewolf]

So there is no freedom of speech in the US as well (see libal and slander).

The german laws are perhaps slightly harsh, but the germans have very big asses to protect and they are still very sore from a thorough slaping 50 years ago.

Perhaps you dont think the holocaust happened?

It'd be a REVOLUTION in US political advertising

[Spittoon]

Imagine-- you put a negative ad on TV about a candidate, and the candidate is given the right to repond to your ad on the network, free of charge!

The law would need some kind of "with equivalent visibility" clauses, so you couldn't dump the reply at 3:00 AM when the original ad was at 8:00 PM.

Right of reply does not interfere with free speech

[cheesybagel]

Those who disagree probably need to get their heads screwed on straight. Is it really, really that much of a problem to you to add a link to a rebutal (with a disclaimer beforehand)?

In a public forum like this one that is not even necessary since one can provide rebuttal in a transparent way.

This law simply extends that hability to other, more closed, reporting sites which have less public interaction.

Regarding people being able to reply elsewhere regardless of this law, the fact is you could also reply to an off base story on TV by shouting with your lungs out in the middle of the street.

But would it have the same effect?

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[IshanCaspian]

No, you're wrong. Free speech entitles you to certain freedoms over your own speech. IT DOES NOT ENTITLE OTHERS TO FORCE YOU TO SAY CERTAIN THINGS, IT DOES NOT GRANT THE FREEDOM TO BE HEARD.

When I say what I want on my blog, that's freedom of speech. When company X says what it wants on my blog, that's a hijacking of my resources.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[jmccay]

I know of people who would cancel subscriptions, or stop buying, magazines or newspapers that printed the responce because they are not interested in a responce.
Most media newspapers and magazines serve a certain community. The community that buys the newspapers or magazines is rarely interested in a responce from the person critised because it will only be viewed as lies or blowing off the original subject.
Most newspapers and magazines are debate grounds. Responces to criticisms so be place in a magazine or newspaper that would support their point of view. If the whole premise of the magazine or newspaper to to debate subjects than fine, but otherwise the responce is just stirring pot.
Why should a newspaper or magazine have to print a responce? If what was said was untrue, then the person can bring a lawsuit against the paper or magazine. Otherwise, the point of view is generally not welcome.

A few european thoughts...

[mattis_f]

After browsing some of the comments made here, I think there is a basic flaw in the discussion. To most europeans, free speech is great but it's even better if it can make us create a better world. The purpose of free speech is to *create debate*, so that we together can find the best solutions to problems. Now the problem is that many people are so locked in with their opinions that they are not willing to let others voice theirs - well, that's what the right-to-reply laws addresses. It forces them to at least let the other party say what he wants somewhere close to them.

However, most americans here on slashdot (I assume you are americans, I might be wrong) seem to consider free speech a means in itself, how it is used is of no importance. And in some posts it seems that debate is not even wanted ("free speech does not mean the right to be heard"!). :-) That would explain why people in other countries often find americans loud. :-)

On another note, this doesn't have to bring anyone's website down. Say I have a popular website where I throw trash at amazon because they treated me wrong in one case. Amazon might want a reply. It doesn't say in the article that amazon could force me to host that reply - it quite clearly states that a link to the reply might be enough. So, something like "get amazon's reply +here+" would be enough. Their website might get downed if a lot of people want to read it (which I doubt, if they came to the website for what I put there).

And about the blogs. The typical situation where the right to reply is used in newspapers in european countries is the same situation where you might get sued in the US. Which do you think scares people off of talking the most - afraid of being sued or afraid of having to post a link to the reply? Now what promotes free speech and what stifles it?

I have a *really* hard time seeing why this is so bad.

Re:America seems really terrible...

[salimma]

they tend toward protection of the State

Well, European regulations on the sharing of private information tend to be stricter than their corresponding American ones. Though quite right, public figures tend to be afforded much more privacy in continental Europe (in the UK, the Sun started a downright spiral when it comes to reporting on the Royal Family)

anonablog

[mrmeval]

Well if I do it on slashdot, I'm safe right?

Would slashdot be responsible for posting up some hate mail?

Would anyone be able to find it? ;-)

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[jmccay]

This would turn every paper and magazine into a debate forum. Factual information will get left in a maze of he/she said this or that.
At least in America we have something called the freedom of the press. While there are times that this freedom doesn't apply (such as national security when lives are at stake), a paper or magazine is free to publish what it wants. It doesn't have to print something it doesn't want.
At the same time, these papers and magazines are beholding to their readers and the law. By the law, I mean if a print media prints something about someone that is not true, then that person can bring them to court and seek damages.
While there are times when I enjoy a great debate, I don't want to perpetually sift through the he saids and she saids. I, like many other people, read certain newspapers and magazines and watch certain news shows and channels because we trust them. We don't always have the time to sift through millions of articles and responces to figure out what is true. We leave it up to the reporters to determine this. When a report doesn't do this properly, it will eventually come out because it always does, and at that the news media and the reporter will be hurt by the negative press and this could cost them their jobs.
How would you like it if you had to always read a responce when you read an article? How would like it if Microsoft submitted a responce article for every submission made about them? While you may have the time to consistently read articles and responces, the rest of the world doesn't. Just like database programmers use a where clause to make the database program filter out the unwanted information because they don't always have the time to check each entry individually to find the data, people choose certain news media outlets to filter out the junk they don't care about.
The basic point is that we don't have to be confronted with other points of views if we don't want to be confronted with them. If you want to be, then so be it. You can pick up both types of media (pro and con for you view point) or frequent media that gives you both.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Carnivorous Carrot]

Actually, no one here disagrees with you. We're just on a not-quite-so-angled downward slide as Europe.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Carnivorous Carrot]

Actually, that's not too far from the truth.

Imagine...Slashdot opens an office in Europe. Someone criticizes you over there. They have to publish your link to your response. You respond with http://goatse.cx, and Slashdot legally has to publish a working link because that is a valid response to someone verbally attacking you!

Well put.

[Tony-A]

The editorial freedom concerning counterstatements should be (and usually is) very limited. The counterstatement has to be published with the same prominence as the original article (same position, same type, etc). The publisher can comment on the counterstatement, but the commentary must not exceed depictions of facts from the publisher's perspective or clarifications of the intended meaning of statements in the original article. Everything else has to be in a separate article. The right of reply still doesn't level the playing field, but it is good enough for many cases which would otherwise end up in front of a judge. [Emphasis added]

If the counterstatement is the ravings of a lunatic, the editor has a few more options. However if the editor comes off as the raving lunatic, (s)he's making the counterstatement seem more legitimate. Even in the absence of laws, it will tend to be somewhat self-policing. In any event it should be effective in keeping minor misunderstandings from escalating into feuds.

Re:legally, there is no such thing as "British Law

[Carnivorous Carrot]

I had a British guy try to explain it to me once, but even he didn't know it completely.

In America, it's nice and easy to understand. You have the Federal government, and then the states, all on the same level, and then local governments, all creations of the states.

In Britain, it's different. The UK in the UN is not the same as the UK in the Commonwealth, which is not the same as the UK in the EU. It's like an onion. Peel off one layer, and you lose Isle of Man(n?) Peel off another, and you lose another island. Peel off another, and you lose Scotland. Peel another, and you lose Wales. London government is not a creation of the English Parliament. Police are sort of their own thing left over from antiquity, etc. etc. etc.

I read a book from the '70's that went into this. Technically, Canada must get permission from the English Parliament before any changes to whatever passes for a constitution up there, but needless to say they don't do that in reality.

Re:avoid traffic problems; article text

[Carnivorous Carrot]

We distinguish them over here, too. They are two continents that happened to be named for the same guy. (Trivia note to Americans: The continent you're standing on is also known as Columbia. Hence, the space shuttle, the Columbian Broadcasting Company, British Columbia, etc. etc. etc.)

No limits on length of reply?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taken from the original article:

"â Long replies are fine. 'There should be flexibility regarding the length of the reply, since there are (fewer) capacity limits for content than (there are) in off-line media.'"

Scared yet? The potential for abuse is staggering.

The Fairness Doctrine

[Artagel]

Some people have raised free speech concerns as if the U.S. might not do the same things the Europeans have. There are reasons to be suspicious.

The FCC used to have something called the fairness doctrine that applied to TV and radio. A media outlet would have to air all points of view if it aired any point of view on a subject.

The fairness doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Red Lion case. In that case, the issue was whether a person who thought he had been personally attacked in a broadcast had the right to air his defense on the station. The Supreme Court ruled:

"In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional."

However, if we take the U.S. Supreme Court at its word in an Internet case, the fairness doctrine might well not be sustained on the Internet. As the Court said in Reno v. ACLU, striking down provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996:

"In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557 (1975), we observed that "[e]ach medium of expression . . . may present its own problems." Thus, some of our cases have recognized special justifications for regulation of the broadcast media that are not applicable to other speakers, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). In these cases, the Court relied on the history of extensive government regulation of the broadcast medium, see, e.g., Red Lion, 395 U. S., at 399-400; the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638 (1994); and its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128 (1989). Those factors are not present in cyberspace."

Given the fact that some broadcasters use cyberspace, e.g. CNN, we can't be sure where our Supreme Court would end up on the freedom of speech issue.

Personally, I hope we don't have to find out.

Re:avoid traffic problems; article text

[Carnivorous Carrot]

OOPS, I meant Columbian Broadcasting Service. CBC is of course Canadian BC.

Re:Micael Moore is your example of being squashed

[ThaReetLad]

His documentry wasn't squashed. Stupid White Men almost was. It was supposed to have been on sale a few days after 9/11 but instead the publisher wouldn't ship the books until Moore made changes so as to look less Anti-Bush. Three months later his publisher was threatening to pulp the 50,000 copies already printed until a librarian started a grass roots campaign to get it published. Which goes to show, its not the right to free speach which is important, it is the right to have your free speach heard. If your press is so free, why did Michael more have to come to a British TV company (Channel 4) to get his TV series made? Why in his list of websites for "Real News" is it that the only two old news media sources he mentions are both British? (The Guardian and the BBC) One of which is a state run TV station! It seems that despite our lack of de jour freedom we might have more de facto freedom that Americans do. No really! Tell me one thing (other than own a machine gun) that an american can do that I cannot and I will tell you one thing I can do which an american cannot. can you say DeCSS? can you say DMCA, PATRIOT act, TIA? Freedom is the ability to choose, but choice is an illusion by those with power against those without, and no one in europe are as all powerful as your rulers^H^H^H^H^H^H leaders.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Guppy06]

"Not so. If you do not want the company's reply to be seen, then you are stifling *their* free speech, not the other way round."

This reminds me of the confusion around "free" software. This law says that you have a right to freely (as in "speech") speak about someone so long as you offer the subject free (as in "beer") speech as well. So you're not allowed to complain unless you're willing to pay for your opponent's bandwidth.

This has got to have some interesting effects on political debate...

Re:Newspapers

[junkgrep]

The individual/small firm probably doesn't HAVE the money, time, or power to reply effectively. Even a lawsuit may not rectify the damages, nor deter the large firm. The damage is already done. But your view on that depends on your view of "survival of the fittest".

It isn't about survival of the fittest. There are already laws against malicious slander and libel. And frankly, in this society, what we need are people smart enough not to take everything at face value.

But the reality still is: I open my mouth, whether I'm a company or a person, and that imposes no obligations on anyone to listen or care. So how can it impose obligations on me to ? If I'm lying, we're supposed to live in a society that ALREADY has a diverse community of criticism to ferret out and publicize lies. People that want information can put effort into looking for it. THAT is the philosophy that democracy is built on, and if it's not working as well as you'd like, THAT is what needs to be fixed.

The quick way to shut this down ...

[zangdesign]

For every website in Europe that essentially says "America sucks" ...

Force them to post a reply of "No, you suck!"

That'll make them change the law real quick.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Guppy06]

"Freedom of the press is for those who have one."

An incentive plan for voluntary "right of reply"

[NetSettler]

I agree with the article's position criticizing this right of reply and wanted to add some additional perspectives that I've not seen posted anywhere.

In the US, the Supreme Court has generally taken the position that the answer to speech is more speech. That is, dialog is self-repairing. (The court has not yet confronted "flaming", and I eagerly await a test of the "more speech" doctrine when an incessant flamer manages to wend his way to the top of the court docket.)

Nevertheless, I think the point is that the reason that libel has traditionally been dealt with more harshly than slander, for example, is that it allows a more limited opportunity for reply. And yet, public figures have, within the US, a higher burden to meet in showing libel--requring a showing of actual malice and not just ill effect. Why? Because public figures are assumed by their nature to be able to command "press time" and to be able to effectively "call a press conference". As such, they are engaged in a visible dialog with the public any time they want and can use speech (rather than lawsuits) to effect redress in most cases, and the court prefers that.

Now, in many Internet venues, anyone can call a press conference. As I have called you readers here to listen to me blather now. We can just "post". And as such, I claim that in this venue, where we all have access to an ability to post, we can all get redress to confusions and offensenses by counterposting. But if this venue were not of that nature, we couldn't.

You might think I'm leading up to saying that therefore everyone should have a right of reply. I don't think that. I think instead that the incentive for adding a right of reply should be that if you deny a right of reply in a venue, the burden of proof for things like libel should be lower because there was not effective means of simple redress offered. If you do offer a right of reply, then the burden of proof for libel should be higher, rewarding you for having made public dialog the chief means of remedying a problem.

In other words, I think that an "incentive-based" forum technology, where those offering right of reply are rewarded legally is a better way to go. That way, the issues of resource and liability and reward will naturally sort themselves out without additional complex mechanism on the matter of reply per se. Rather, an available right of reply should be seen as one kind of evidence that a forum is not seeking to hoodwink anyone; absent that, the burden might be on the forum to show that in some other way.

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

[Guppy06]

"Of course they don't have the First Amendment. They don't have the Declaration of Independance or the Proclamation of Emancipation, either; the First Amendment is part of the American constitution."

Your new word for today is "analogy". Your homework assignment is to learn its definition and compose five sentences using the word.

"This intentionally emotion-provoking phrase intends to say "they don't have freedom of speech","

IMO (I'm not the original poster), he meant that Europeans don't have "hard" freedom of speech. The US is more or less unique with the wording of its constitution. Most national documents (including and especially western European countries) state that its people have "freedom of speech" but don't say much more than those magic three words, leaving the government to figure out just what they mean (yes, I know I'm cynical, but...). In the US, "Congress shall make no law." If this law were passed in the US verbatim, it would be smacked down by the courts in about three seconds flat (and heads would probably roll during the next election year). Most European democracies have few fundamental laws that restrict their legislatures quite this "severely," so it's more than fair to say that they don't have a "First Amendment."

"This reads like a third-grader's "your momma's so fat" joke; it seems like it's just there to try to make Europe seem bad, without any justifying context."

Metaphor time!

"Tim's momma's so fat, etc etc... And now, according to national law, I must inform you that Tim has presented a signed affidavit from a doctor that his mother is not clinically 'obese.'"

Just imagine the chaos at your average soccer game!

"With the implication that in pursuit of respect for Free Speech,"

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

"Respect For Small Government,"

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectivley, or to the People."

"the states aren't any better at any of this than their peers in democracy."

If anything, I'd argue that we've at least done a better job of putting these ideals into words and putting them in our fundamental laws.

"College kids don't get their life-savings yanked for producing search engines in free-speech respecting nations."

I'll get flamed for doing this, but he was free to say "no" to the settlement offer.

"why'd you have to ruin it by trying to make America the moral of the story?"

Because he know how much of a resposne it would incite. Duh!

in the great slashdot tradition,

[alizard]

you didn't read it either.

it's pretty zany to imagine that just about every form of online publishing, from full-time news organizations to occasional bloggers to moderated chat rooms, would be covered. But it's no accident. A January 2003 draft envisioned regulating only "professional on-line media." Two months later, a March 2003 draft dropped the word "professional" and intentionally covered all "online media" of any type.

OK, this applies to EU. Would an offense against this be extraditable under the Cybercrime Treaty if someone in EU government was sufficiently offended?

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

[Guppy06]

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;"

Interpreted by whom?

"this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference"

Only if you don't consider having to pick up the tab for publishing rebuttals "interference." At the very least, it's debatable.

"and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

However, it is not reguardless of topic.

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

Point out the phrase "shall make no law" (or its equivalent) in that sentence, and I'll agree with you.

try getting your URL right

[alizard]

Here's what I found at the URL you posted:
HTTP Error 404

404 Not Found

Re:Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communicat

[Zebbers]

actually internet communications should be different

cause they ARE different

i cannot stand people who cant change. Im sorry. the internet medium has very very very little to do with any other medium out there.

for fucks sake, look at this site. NOTHING like anything else. And guess what? Just cause I call CNN doesnt mean they have to air my complaint, just cause i write to an editor...

I dont see your point.

A mailing list is like a group discussion, a group meeting. A blogs alittle more open....BUT THE INET IS NEW. Do no apply old standards to it.
thank you
good day

Re:Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communicat

[reallocate]

When you've finished stomping your feet, maybe you might explain how and why the Internet is so "different".

Meanwhile, consider this: If I knowingly publish a lie about you in my newspaper, you have recourse to the courts to collect damages and compel me to retract the lie. If I publish the same lie in a media outlet that happens to be a web site, why should you not have recourse to the same rights and legal protections?

By the same token, if a country already has laws about the right to reply, why should people not enjoy the protection of those laws simply because the medium in question is the Internet?

The Internet isn't all that new, but even if it was created yesterday it's newness wouldn't absolve the people using it of responsibility for their words.

If you don't want to be held accountable for your words, don't put them on the Internet for everyone to read. When you put your words on an Internet site, that's publishing. If you want it to be private communications, send an email.

And, by the way, Slashdot is nothing special. Just a few people picking news items written by other people, posting them somewhere, and inviting comment. It's an old idea and it predates the Internet.

Again, the technology is not relevant. It's the words that count.

more != better

[Anonymous Coward]

Increasing the amount of speech does not increase the freedom of speech. In a broadcast medium there is reason to enforce fair play and have feedback rules, as the message spread by the medium can have an effective monopoly over an audience. If the only local news show slanders Bob Jones regularly, how is Bob to defend himself?

The internet is different. Bob can afford to put up his own web site as a counter. Web sites probably don't have effective monopolies because they are pulled content, not pushed. The audience in general seeks a variety of opinions. The multitude of voices on the internet delivers.

To control the manner in which you can speak and present your opinions is, at face value, stifling the freedom of your speech. This rule about mandatory talk back does not belong on the internet at this time. Hopefully it will never belong, as that will be admitting that the entire internet has gone corporate and that individuals, once again, don't have a voice. -theed

Re:He blew him away, logically

[NavySpy]

Hey, thanks.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[jhunsake]

I was under the impression they were talking about free speech and not freedom of the press.

The right not to reply

[Endimiao]

Some of you seem to forget that targets need not to make use of that right all the time.

Morality based exceptions in the US too

[Chuck Chunder]

The fact is that Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms just expresses things more realistically in relation to the requirements for a civil society. The 1st Amendment may sound absolute but it simply isn't in reality.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Alsee]

"Freedom of the press is for those who have one."

And now with the internet, a homeless guy can go into his local library, log on to the internet, sign up for a free webpage/blog, and he could wind up with the #1 google link on any given subject.

-

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, a corporation doesn't have the same rights to speach as an individual

No, not in Europe. In the US, though, corporations have standing in court. They are recognised as a person. Since roughly the 1890s. As such, they have the same right to free speech as the wannabe communist down the road. Difference is, the corporation has money.

You've got to understand - the eu is a democracy

[Larsing]

1. No one cares about your definition of the union. Maastricht is a legally binding treaty.
2. With Brussels, I assume you refer to the European Parliament rather than the Belgian Parliament? The European Parliament is, obviously, not exclusively made up of Belgians, but also, to an unproportionally large part, actually, of Britons. Sadly (or luckily?) only pro-europeans vote in the British elections to the European parliament...
3. I restate my claim that Britons are the EU citizens most unaware of the Union...

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[fanpoe]

Wow. If he can do it for 'sex', 'gambling', 'dating' or 'travel' then I want to meet (& hire) this guy ;>

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

[Ngwenya]

The problem with the European Convention on Human Rights is they included loopholes for just about everything so even the most despotic government can stifle all freedom and still abide by that piece of paper

So what? The USA in its history has permitted the most egregious abuses of constitutional intent by selective reading and enforcement of constitutional scripture (thinking slavery, McCarthy, etc). Any rights conferring document is only as good as the level to which the state abides.

I have read the convention, and various acts which enshrine the provisions into law. The central point from the article was the implication that Europe's lack of an absolutely phrased First Amendment means that European governments and people are less "free" than their American counterparts.

European society is different from American society. Not inferior, just different. The relationship between the state and the people is of a different character to those in the USA (government is more active on behalf of the people than would be acceptable in the USA - you would probably say government interferes more with the people). What comes over as bureaucratic bullshit to you may come over as sensibly phrased compromise to us. Beware nations divided by a common language!

Hence my point. There is no One True Construction of Liberty. Liberty is a construction of rights and freedoms deriving inherently from the condition and history of a people as a whole. Therefore, a different history, with different pressures, and different results will produce a different construction. While comparison between similar states is valid and desirable, absolute ranking is rarely profitable. Does this make judgement impossible? Hell, no - it just makes it trickier. But diversity and complexity make the world interesting.

--Ng

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[Alsee]

If you do not want the company's reply to be seen, then you are stifling *their* free speech, not the other way round.

That makes perfect sense when you apply it to newspapers. They are incapable of replying on their own unless they have a newspaper of their own. Since a newspaper is a speaker in a priviledged position they must provied that privilege to others. It is easy for a newspaper with a fulltime staff of dozens and a legal department to comply.

It is a mess to try to apply it to an individual blogger. It is an unreasonable burden on an individual, and everyone already has the exact same ability to put up their own blog. You are not denied the right to reply and their is no justification to place a burden on the first person to supply it for you.

On the internet the main use of this will be corporations with legal departments using it to place the burden on individuals. That is the exact opposite of the original intent.

-

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[cREW oNE]

Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you think. Not if that "free speech" is unjustly damaging another person or business. Total freedom of speech into the extreme without any consequences for those who speak is nothing short of anarchy. Americans are always so proud of their version of "free speech", not realizing that they are in fact bound to a whole other set of limitations, especially after 9/11.

Re:TV and radio yes, private media, NO

[amuzulo]

Do Christian publications need to regularly publish replies from atheists by law now?

No, but it would be a good idea. =)

Requirement not to censor the opinions of others

[amuzulo]

Some of you may not have noticed that a lot of sites have a lot of misinformation on them that the casual observer would probably not notice. Often it's also impossible to write them to tell them about it or even if you do, they just ignore it.

This is why I like Wikipedia, because it's a general information site where everyone has the right to reply. Everyone has a chance to have a say and we all strive to present each others views fairly. I'd love for everything I was reading to have the right to reply and it's one of the reasons why I love blogs so much!

This could also be restated as the requirement not to censor the opinions of others. If you see an article that has false information, do you want the owner of that to be able to censor your reply? Even if you publish it somewhere else, most of the original readers won't see it. This is not what I consider free speech.

No

[Woolfie]

So you say, that a victim of libel should not have the right to fight back, just because *you* think that the victim has lost it's reputation anyway? hmmm...not a really strong argument :-)
The last paragraph is just the usual Europe bashing that you love so much. Not really insightful :-)

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

[misterpies]

Surely the reason Europe lacks a first amendment is that we got it right the first time around :)

Rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail party

[basingwerk]

No. The fellow who said something unkind on the Internet has the right to post it on his OWN web page. At present, the slandered party must find another web page. They are NOT allowed by the mighty WebMasters to post on the same page that slandered them, so they have less freedom of speech. They have to find another forum. This is rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail party. The mighty WebMasters demand the right to censor other contributions by exclusion. What this law is about is making the Internet public property, not the private domain of the mighty WebMasters, who expect to say what they want, in public and one way (i.e. without allowing the other party to respond in the same forum).

Re:Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communicat

[reallocate]

So, I guess that means you're OK with me writing lies about you and posting them to a weblog and any other Internet site I can access? And that you'd be OK with a system that prohibited you from taking any legal action against me, even if those lies got you fired, effectively keep you from being working in your profession, and cost you your house?

Your point that no one is forced to read something is irrelevant. The point is knowingly publishing lies about someone is illegal. You seem to want to give Internet publishers free rein to avoid responsibility for publishing libel and slander.

Re:Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communicat

[reallocate]

Nice litany of insults. Have you noticed, yet, that poeple ignore what you say?

What free speech?

[siskbc]

It's really amazing that a lot of posts here try to attack the EU version of free speech, while I think that a lot of (European) people would argue that the EU version is a lot better than the US version. Oh well.

I think people in the US would argue YOU DON'T HAVE IT. If people can tell you what to say, you are not free.

Re:What free speech?

[cREW oNE]

Professional media outlets, be it print or internet, is indeed "not free". You are correct about that. They have been bound by rules for decades.

If you think the US media is "free" (as you define it) then you've got a thing or two coming.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[banzai51]

No, they do not in the US. A corporation MUST attempt to be factual at all times. They are also limited in what they can say in regards to financial disclosure, future plans, legal action, etc. Basically to prevent insider trading or stock price speculation.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[banzai51]

Yes, even if that speach is damaging to another. The only exception to that is if a person is attempting to knowing slander someone. In court, they call this proving "Malice". In defense of my arguement, I present the KKK. These dweebs are free to say whatever they please and the government can't do a damn thing about it.

Applies NOT only to 'professional on-line media'

[saforrest]

I was wrong in claiming the recommendation only applied to 'professional on-line media', as the following bit from the article shows:

It's pretty zany to imagine that just about every form of online publishing, from full-time news organizations to occasional bloggers to moderated chat rooms, would be covered. But it's no accident. A January 2003 draft envisioned regulating only "professional on-line media." Two months later, a March 2003 draft dropped the word "professional" and intentionally covered all "online media" of any type.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Blondie-Wan]

You don't. You might have to link to it. Ignore the biased article. Try reading the actual report summary.

Of course. I have in fact tried, but the links in both the original article and your reply here give me 404 errors; in lieu of reading it, I went by what the article stated.

What about the stipulation that the response must be made available for a period of time at least equal to the duration of the original criticism and at least 24 hours? Does a Google cache count?

I don't know; does it? It didn't sound as though it would from what I was able to read; you tell me...

At any rate, I was speaking in a more general sense about whether anyone who offered criticism in any medium should be obligated to provide access to a rebuttal by the target of said criticism. Specific provisions of the draft that address concerns are good and all, but I was asking whether this kind of thing is a good idea as a general rule.

Re:Internet Publications Are Media, Not Communicat

[baruz]

Sorry to stick my nose in, but there are existing legal mechanisms for this, that is, I do have legal redress, and have had for hundreds of years, even before the Internet existed. They're called libel and slander laws, which are adjudicated in civil court. If someone damages my credibility on the web, I would set up my own redress on the web. If that redress does not adequately recover my credibility, then I evaluate the damage done by the defamation, then sue them for those damages and perhaps a punitive sum, I think. IANAL.

What a bunch of non-sense.

[Augusto]

Despots will love this law. That means, that an Iraninan blogger, who posts items against their represive Theocratic state, would have to be forced to post government propaganda.

What a dumb idea.

Re:What a bunch of non-sense.

[ThaReetLad]

well that assumes that anyone actually pays enough attention to said bloggers site that it should appear on the Iranian clerics radars, which is highly unlikely.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Hittite Creosote]

Of course. I have in fact tried, but the links in both the original article and your reply here give me 404 errors

Tried it again, yes, still works fine for me. What I was pointing to was the discussion document. With their suggestions. None of which is necessarily going to be made law. But the relevant bit to the duration of the reply is -

17. One expert thought that the requirement that the reply should be available for at least 24 hours was not flexible enough. The publisher might have to take down the reply before 24 hours had passed, for example due to its defamatory nature. Another expert suggested that the reply should be offered for as long as the person or entity affected so demanded, but at the most for one month.

That does not appear to be the same as 'one month plus the length of time the original was there' to me.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[cREW oNE]

And boy, am I glad I live in a country where something like the KKK could never happen :)

This law (that, again, has been in effect since 1974) is a good thing. It protects the individual from large corporations. So some large newsoutlets won't be able to attack a person without at least printing the other side of the story. Big deal.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Blondie-Wan]

That does not appear to be the same as 'one month plus the length of time the original was there' to me.

Nor to me, either; where'd you get "one month plus"? I said only "a period of time at least equal to the duration of the original criticism and at least 24 hours," which I think accurately paraphrases the first item listed in the article's "excerpts from its proposal":

"The reply should be made publicly available in a prominent place for a period of time (that) is at least equal to the period of time during which the contested information was publicly available, but, in any case, no less than for 24 hours."

I didn't say anything about the original time plus an additional month. I just mentioned having the reply for the same time as the original critical work, which is what the article cites as a proposal.

I can use the link now, though.

Re:Newspapers too -- yes

[JuggleGeek]

Nonsense.

If the company wants to respond, they can do so on their website. They shouldn't be able to control what I post on mine, any more than I should have a right to decide what they post on theirs.

This is designed to keep your average joe from being able to post what he believes.

If a newspaper, TV station, or radio station say something about a company/individual that that individual doesn't like, he can't force them to print/broadcast his side of the story. The rest of us shouldn't be forced to do it either.

Free speech isn't free speech if someone else gets to decide what you must post.

Re:Rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail par

[FeloniousPunk]

No. The fellow who said something unkind on the Internet has the right to post it on his OWN web page. At present, the slandered party must find another web page. They are NOT allowed by the mighty WebMasters to post on the same page that slandered them, so they have less freedom of speech. They have to find another forum. This is rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail party. The mighty WebMasters demand the right to censor other contributions by exclusion. What this law is about is making the Internet public property, not the private domain of the mighty WebMasters, who expect to say what they want, in public and one way (i.e. without allowing the other party to respond in the same forum).
Look man, get your terms straight first. SLANDER is a deliberately false statement made with malicious intent to do harm to another's reputation; it is done VERBALLY. LIBEL is the printed version of SLANDER, and since we're talking about the World Wide Web here, LIBEL is the term you should use, not SLANDER. LIBEL is an actionable crime under the law, whether in the US or in Germany. If someone has been libeled, they take the libelous party to court. Here is a legal definition of libel with some examples. I'm sure Google can help you find more.
So now that we've gotten LIBEL out of the way, that leaves the rest of the objectionable bits, which essentially amount to you not being able to deal with other people's exercise of free speech. Free speech is the right to speak your mind; this right is not abridged by consideration of others. In a free society, you have to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to say things that please you. In no way is free speech constituted so that you can only say what you like if you repeat others' objections to your opinion. Bear in mind that we are not talking about news organizations here, we are talking about people's own web pages and blogs.
And that's just on principle. Then there are the practical nightmares of trying to enforce this law effectively on the general population.
Finally... "the mighty WebMasters?" WTF is that, some kind of comic book villain? Despair, mortals! The WebMaster is come to destroy you! Bwahahaha! Seriously, a web master is just a name for a guy who updates and administers a web page. In the case of someone's blog or personal web page, that's the owner. So do you think people should no longer have rights over their own web pages?

Re:Rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail par

[basingwerk]

With respect, the first non-legal definition I found in google says that slander is âa false and malicious statement or report about someoneâ(TM) so I rest my case on that. I agree that (in pre-internet days) there was a concrete difference between slander and libel, but the multi-media oriented Internet will erase this distinction in time. In fact, it is the real-time nature of the Internet that makes it more like having a conversation than reading a newspaper. This in turn makes it reasonable to accept rebuttals, as you would in a discussion over a pint in the pub. What I mean to say, in a nutshell, is that traditional âWebMasterâ(TM) style users treated the Internet like a Newspaper and barred rebuttals, at least as far as they could on their own sites. This law will encourage the use of the Internet as a consensus driven conversational tool, rather than as a mouthpiece for crackpots. It will allow feedback, which is necessary for any system to work.

Re:Rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail par

[basingwerk]

More none-legal definitions of slander. Suggest we invent a new term for multimedia, such as slibelled, or landered or some such word. 2: the act of defaming [syn: aspersion, calumny, defamation] v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" The article in the paper sullied my reputation" [syn: defame, smirch, asperse, denigrate, calumniate, smear, sully, besmirch]

Re:Newspapers

[junkgrep]

So now there is now an obligation on the diverse community to seek out lies and publish them...

No, there is no obligation on anyone. IF people want to seek out the truth, they can do so.

why not make it the obligation of the publisher to fix his/her errors in truth when pointed out?

First of all, this legislation has nothing to do with truth, just criticism. But second of all, even if the publisher does make errors: so what? Even if they are lying through their teeth, lying is not against the law unless its fraud or libel or some other attempt to defraud or do material harm.

Re:You've got to understand - the eu is a democrac

[Larsing]

You are trying to prove awareness by quoting that 80-so % of the people aware think this and that - nice!

On a different point:
For a nation boasting a 1000 years of proud history, you seem to have a stunningly short memory.
In all that time, you really only bailed us out once (and don't try to compare Napoleon and Willhelm with Hitler, that's just ignorant), and you have yet to bail "us" out of something you weren't part in starting yourself...