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.
I think Slashdot in particular would benefit a LOT from having a right to reply. :o)
Oh, wait!
I commented this late in the very-similar post from the other day, but I figured it was worth it again, now that this is recieving more attention.
The print incarnation of this rule has long been in force in Belgium, and it was funny, the local english-speaking magazine had to print a response by what is considered here to be a radical right-wing group (the Vlamms-Blok, more harmless than moderate republicans in the US, if you ask me); they printed the response, along with several articles sorrounding it (literally, on the page) about the introduction and severe abuse of the laws which mandate it, hence completely invalidating the response piece. They weren't even obligated to allow a re-response, it was great.
My real question is, though, how can something as widely defined as European online communication be expected to produce cases which can actually be enforced in court. What's to prevent me from using a US blogsite, or host my site on US servers? Nothing. There's nothing like Eurocrats speanding hideous quantities of time and money on something which proves useless by sheer virtue of its unenforcability.
Why would this have a chilling effect? It just ensures the powerfull and rich people can't bash and blaim poor people, without giving them a chance to defend themselve. Journalists have way too much power, and that power should be regulated so it isn't abused.
In accordance with European law Anonymous Coward may reply to this comment.
Omnis amans amens
Compagnies like Microsoft can bash linux as a file server or Java as a viable programming language and Sun and the OSS community can't do anything about it. With laws like these the truth can come out. It is a law of fairness. Not just the rich media have a voice anymore.
I'd love to see such fairness happen in North America.
This is already law for newspapers, and why would internet sites be held to a lesser standard?
And what is the alternative? Facing countless lawsuits? I think it would be less easy to sue someone if he already had to publish your clarification.
And it doesn't say you would have to delete your original or that you can't make sure everyone understands you were forced by law to publish the "clarification" and you still stand by your original report.
So if somebody has a web site that offends another person, that person gets to have his reply posted for a period on the web site. What, though, if the reply offends some third party? Does the third party get to have his reply to the reply posted on the original web site? What about a reply to that?
...only outlaws will make comments.
I can understand maybe if you're trying to come across as an "unbiased" news site, but to make even personal and overtly editorial sites comply with this would just be silly.
If they have to do it, they should make the responder host his own comments, and at the most make the original article include a link to the response. And even then, only for certain sites. To have to post the response on your own site it too much burden and would severely stiffle freedom of expression.
And if I posted an article on how great Linux is, would I have to give space to Microsoft for a rebuttal?
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be heard, and the idea of forcing people to listen to others is downright repugnant, and EVIL.
It smacks of Totalitarianism where an elite few are allowed to decide WHO gets listened to and WHO doesn't.
The idea that a crazy bum has a right to be heard is insanity in itself. Sure, he can SAY anything he wants, but I have a RIGHT not to be forced into listening to his crazy talk. It doesn't matter if he speaks truth either.
Nothing good can come from this.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Read the article and the draft. It looks like this would only apply to businesses. This would guarantee Joe Sixpack the right to respond to the European equivalent of CNN.com and have that reply posted.
I'm not concerned about this law, as I'm interested in letting people see the replies I get to anything I put online. Simply allowing comments on the article would take care of this.
I don't see it as chilling, especially since it only has to be there for 24 hours and you can just link to it.
It requires you to add a "Replies to our stories" link on your news site. Boo Hoo.
Hell, I can see this becoming a new source of revenue for geeks. Take blog software, make some cosmetic changes and market it as a "response administration system."
Authenticating the source of the replies could be handled by a login process, and news sites could automate the process of inserting a link to the "replies" section a hundred different ways.
I'm not worried. If people want to make fools of themselves by disagreeing with me, let them. Half the time the arguments against me just strengthen my point.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
There's a part of me that's entertained by how exploitable the system would be:
1) Goad someone in to mentioning you on their website.
2) Demand right of reply.
3) Just like politicians never reply to the actual question, nor do you.
Now you get someone else to pay all of your hosting costs for you.
Imagine Petsmart, "PetCo has described themselves as the best pet store in the country. We demand the right of redress to fill their site with advertising for our own store."
Every time Microsoft posted anything about Linux, the open source community would get granted rebuttal space on Microsoft's own web servers.
Not only that but who gets the right of reply? Linus? Every contributor to Linux? Anyone who's ever reported a Mozilla bug?
Then there're the counter exploits: Refuse until they take you to court. Continue refusing until the day before the court date. Then post the rebuttal on the same page as the now two-years out of date story.
The reality is it's totally unenforcable. Sit back, rather than get worked up over it, let them try it and watch it fall to pieces around them.
Imagine the chilling effect if companies can sue your for billions of dollars in damages if you say something bad about their trademark. All it might take is a single letter to scare you into taking down your entire web site. Of course, we already have that in the US.
The European proposal seems to amount to "if you are a news site (commercial or non-commercial), you have to put in a link to the person/company you write about if they ask you to". I fail to see the "chilling effect" in that. It seems to be a matter of simple journalistic ethics to do that anyway.
If we could eliminate product libel and many forms of trademark infringement lawsuits that have cropped up around web sites through such a simple requirement in the US, I think we should adopt it, too: it would seem to be a great way of ensuring that people can exercise their right to free speech without fear of being sued out of everything they own.
In the French Revolutionary phrase "liberty, equality and fraternity", the equality means equal under the law. At the moment in most developed countries the rich, or those with media access, are a lot more equal than everybody else. Even if there are flaws in the proposed legislation, it does seek to address an inequity in free speech, which is that the rich, or the media-savvy, can make their free speech heard while the poor cannot. When the US Constitution was written, the range of most people's free speech was the size of the town square. Its drafters didn't imagine a world in which a lie could be spread everywhere in just a few minutes.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
The point about right of reply in this context is that it gets to the same people who saw the original piece.
Unless the legislation is written truely clumsily, it shouldn't be a big problem. Or unless you're under US jurisdiction - but then, as Mark Twain once commented in another context, I repeat myself.
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.
May 27 1669 This morning, before I went to the office, Nick the servant of Mr. Scobell came requesting that I correct what I said of him and link to his version of events. Staid past noon so to make this correction: "Mr. Scobell says that Parliament merely misunderstood how it was writ that Parliament was dissolved and that Mr. Scobell was not in danger of being arrested and you may find his version at Desk.Mr.Scobell.KingStreetByHayMarket.London." Thence to the office. Dined with my cosin which was very good; only the venison pasty was palpable beef. Then to home and to bed.
May 28 1669 To my office till noon. Intended to meet with Mr. Harper to drink and eat, for I had not eaten earlier. But hither my cosin comes to complain and ask that I write this correction "That I shall say that my cosin does buy his meat from fyne butchers and that he would not mix venisin with beef" and you may find his writings at Diary.ThomasPepys.LeftPocket-TheGreenCoat.London. Unable to meet Mr. Harper. Drank two cups of Metheglin instead. Then to bed.
May 29 1669 Up in the morning and I was to go to King's Crossing to collect my salary so I can pay my landlord before he gets apoplectic. But Mr. Cook came angrily to correct me about what I wrote of him so let me write "Mr. Cook did not 'Rail' or otherwise speak in any but a rational way when confronting Mr. Pepys about if Mr. Pepys was after my job." and you may find his statement at MrCook.DiaryLibrary.BehindTheSwan.CrookedLane.Lond on.
Again I was to leave and hither comes the servant of my Lord Chesterfield with a note that "Lord Chesterfield wishes to correct Mr. Pepys and requests him to link to Chesterfield's account of the duel. To whit: Chesterfield did not 'flee' but merely had an important meeting the next day in Holland." I then was to go to my brothers but in comes Mr. Cook to say "You must tell them I was not angry when I spake with you this morning." And you may find his words at MrCook.DiaryLibrary.EtcEtcEtc. And then to bed.
May 30 1669 I lay in bed intending to practice my lute, but then came three servants of three men each telling me to correct what I did write of their employers. I spent until 3 O'clock fixing my writings. Then to King's Crossing but just as I started Mrs. Jewel accosted me to say I wrote badly of her in that "She was not drunk and even if she did drink she still sings better than anyone else in the Tavern" and I should link to her diary which I do not know the location but you may search at DiariesOfDrunkenLadies I am sure. Drank three cups of Metheglin and then to bed.
May 31 1669 This morning comes a pounding on my door from both my landlord and John the Tavern owner ordering that I tell you their versions of what I had writ so "the landlord is not apoplectic" and "All singers at the tavern sing like the nightingale". Spent the afternoon hiding from Mrs. Jewel. And now I shall stop the keeping of my journal, I being not able to do it any longer, having done so much corrections and additions every time I take a pen in my hand I do not have time for my own words. And so to bed.
As I stated in response to the original posting on this topic, I don't see this as chilling. In fact, I see this as encouraging and supporting dialog. This is no different from the old FCC rules, no longer with us, that required TV and radio stations to air responses to editorials.
In looking at something like this we have to balance the burden of the requirement against the public benefit of it being in place.
So, what is burden? Well, you would have to have a "letters to the editor" place in your web site, blog, or ezine. From a human factors point of view, you should have an indicator that would call out that a piece has a response to it. In terms of system building and design, this would be trival to add to blogs and web sites.
What is the benefit? Well, when reading a piece, you get to see the "other side of the story" from the person, persons, or organization which are the subject of the piece.
From my point of view the minimal burden coupled with the benefit of getting a more complete picture of a situation only equals goodness.
This brings me to my final point: how, why do people see this as chilling? When has dialog ever been chilling. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who is reported to have said, "Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own printing presses." Yes, the cost of entry for publishing the internet has dropped. But in some ways the cost of attention has gone up. If you write something about me, I can go and setup a blog and write a response, but I have no way to insure that your audience has the opportunity to see my response. This proposal would give me the opportunity to get my story out. If you are going to call me out by name, shouldn't I - in the sense of fairness - have the opportunity to let put out my story and for folks to know it is there? To have a chance that they will see it and chose to read it?