Slashdot Mirror
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)."
Maybe it is only a US policy, but I thought "We will sue you!" letters from the organization's lawyers was the standard reply.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
They can write their reply on their check they send me to pay for my monthly web-hosting costs.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
So if the whole web works like slashdot we're covered? People can comment on any article if it refers to them or not.
Omnis amans amens
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!
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
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?
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
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...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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
Sigs are dangerous coy things
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.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
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?
Read reviews of shopping cart software
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.
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 ?
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
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.
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?
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.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
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.
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?
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...
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
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?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
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.
My
Limekiller
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.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
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.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
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.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
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
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
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.
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...
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
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.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
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.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
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...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Does this mean we will get M$ commenting on every /. post concerning them?
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...
--==-- I've found Karma to be a relative thing... Ya know, the kind you invite to Christmas...
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
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.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
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.
quote is on NRO Sorry for the second-hand refrence. It is from The Economist and I do not have a subscription
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
All rights have limitations. Even the right to own property or free speech.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
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?
#!/usr/bin/english
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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!
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
"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
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.
mt
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 ....
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.
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 :-)
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...
...) are stupid enough to attack something like Slashdot (or your personal web site), so we are all probably safe for the moment.
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
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.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
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?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
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.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
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:
So, it is very wrong to state that EU lacks a "First Amendment".
The other claims are equally absurd.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
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?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
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.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
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.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
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
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.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
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?
Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;more;yes;umount;sleep
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.
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.
--- If I had a funny sig too, you might be laughing now.
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.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
All this will do is get people to move their postings to servers into more liberal geographic regions.
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.
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?
NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT
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.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
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.
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...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
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.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
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.
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.
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?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
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.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine