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.

Comments

Re:Why chilling?

[tomhudson]

they can't go to a court and say "they slandered me and won't let me defend myself, so make them give me money".</quote>

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?

Re:That's a good thing!

[CaptainStormfield]

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).

Re:You have it backwards.

[Sneftel]

RTFA. The legislation would make it legal to post a link to the rebuttal.