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 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
I agree. What are you afraid of? A healthy debate? This law should do nothing to prevent people from publish what they already are. What it will do is force them to do a little more research about what they are writing.
If you are writing well researched material, then your opponent must reply in kind. If you are writing unresearched, knee-jerking, reactionary garbage and didn't set your facts right, then maybe you have something to worry about.
Think of it this way: What if Microsoft wrote a terrible review of a Linux filesystem with obvious errors. The right of reply would allow the coder responsible to send in a reply that said "actually, we do have that feature. It is in the code, lines 789-1245. It works. It has worked for several years now, and we have a mailing list full of responses to prove it." This is good.
What this law does (or what it intends to do, and I hope that the law is not bent to other purposes) is level the playing field. Microsoft can try and publish a slander paper on Red Hat, but Red Hat can refute the charges just like Microsoft can refute something that Red Hat says about Microsoft.
What this forces people to write more about the strengths of the idea that they are proposing and less about the weaknesses of someone else's idea. It is easy to be a critic. It takes a lot more thought to come up with a better idea. But better ideas change the word and negative comments take it nowhere.
The right of reply can be very good. Far too many stories are one-sided. Some of the best journalism I have ever read involved a newspaper committing half of a page to one side of an issue and the other half to the opposite issue. That format forced the reading to really THINK about the issue.
Please reply with your well-researched and insightful comments. They may be contrary to mine, but if they are insightful, then I am listening.
The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein