Slashdot Mirror
Europe, Free Speech, And The Internet
drdale writes "Declan McCullagh responds at CNET.com to a proposal by the Council of Europe to require Internet sites to publish replies by individuals whom the sites criticize. This would apply to all web sites, apparently, including blogs. Per McCullagh, the Council's proposals do not have the force of law, but often serve as the basis for new laws." Imagine the chilling effect if McCullagh's own politechbot and similar sites had to follow such rules.
Dupe of this story?
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
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
Anyway, this isn't a dupe, exactly. It covers the topic of the proposed law, but this article is an expert's response and should bring up issues that /. folk hadn't thought of yet...
--PhinMak --
One more reason to keep an eye on your money.
No, it means that when you post anti-Microsoft tirades on your little blog site, MS has the right to come in and force you to put up a 500k .doc file telling everyone why you are full of shit.
it's in brasil's constitution since 1988. it's called "reply right" and states that everyone has the right of reply _proportional to the damage_
this means that if someone badmouths me, i have the right to defend myself.
is usual to see this right being used by politicians during campaigns. ans since the arcticle is generic, it applies to _ALL KINDS_ of media. doesn't matter if is writen, spoken or digital. you badmouth me in your blog and your blog is in brasil, i'll get a reply right. if you don't publish my reply i'll get a warrant to shovel the reply down your server's throat. simple, efficient and it's there since before internet went public.
What ? Me, worry ?
The Europeans do not have a bill of rights. They do not have a constitution granting them freedoms like we have.
They've chosen it themselves. If laws like this are the result, then that's just what they'll have to put up with.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
What does a right of reply have to do with not being able to sue for slander or libel?
Come on, if your local newspaper, or, more likely, the National Enquirer, published a headline on page one saying you're a pig-fucker, you already have the right to write back to the editor. So they publish your rebuttal and say - "see, we've published your rebuttal, nyah-nyah, don't sue us".
Would you be satisfied? Not very likely. You'd sue (unless you really are a pig-fucker, or the goatse.cx man, in which case there has been no libel).
You think people are going to pay attention to a rebuttal? Or that it would have as much credibility as a million-dollar award by the courts?
This is already law for newspapers, and why would internet sites be held to a lesser standard?
It's not the law for newspapers in the U.S.; the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a right-of-reply statute in 1974. See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974).
"The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
I shouldn't have to pay the bandwidth costs for someone else's opinion any more than they should have to pay them for mine. It violates my right to free speech if I have to spread their ideas and their right if they have to spread mine.
Not only does it not violate your right to free speech (the right of reply exists because you have the right of free speech), but the whole thing is pointless if the person replying does not have access to the same audience that you do. Which that person should have, if he is offering a correction to your audience of (possibly) incorrect data that you have previously presented.
The basic idea here is that you cannot malign a person online and expect to have a one-sided debate on the issue.
RTFA. The legislation would make it legal to post a link to the rebuttal.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Court Upholds Secret Detentions
US court upholds draconian law allowing secret arrests
Executions possible at Guantanamo
Big Brother - Make That Uncle Sam
Ashcroft seeks broader powers
Now shut the fuck up about your imaginary "rights". May you live in interesting times, american bastards.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
No, it does not require you to just add a link "replies to our stories". It requires you to give the reply the same ammount of exposure as your original article. In other words, if you article was a front page headline, the reply has to be a front page headline.