Comment Articles

European 'news rights' are all wrong

Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com CNET News

Published: 17 Jun 2003 16:04 BST

First, a right of reply penalises an Internet speaker or publisher. It takes time to receive a reply, to edit it for space, and to verify that it actually came from the person being criticised. In many cases, the cost may be minimal, but in marginal cases, it is likely to stifle robust political discussion -- which lies at the heart of a democracy.

Second, the proposal substitutes an unelected bureaucrat's judgment about what material is appropriate for a mailing list, a chatroom or a Web log for the judgment of the person who first created the resource. There are other checks and balances than this kind of rough-hewn approach, such as readers eventually recognising that a publication is biased or prone to errors and thus turning elsewhere for news and opinion. Besides, for many bloggers, it's already common practice to swap links with critics.

Third, the council's plan is unenforceable. Even today, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom have not enacted a right of reply for traditional media, and it's a good bet that they won't for the Internet, either. A Euroblogger who wished to cloak his identity could set up an account in one of those countries -- or in the United States.

It's worth noting that the council has done some worthwhile work in other areas. On 28 May, it released its "Declaration on freedom of communication on the Internet", which urged governments not to mandate blocking software and to preserve anonymity. Then again, the organisation can be entirely too censor-happy, as when it approved a ban on Internet "hate speech" last year. Its creepy cybercrime treaty would be a boon to the police and the national security goons who make up the world's eavesdrop establishment.

While the Council of Europe is very influential and its proposals have a tendency to become law, that outcome is not guaranteed. After this week's anticipated approval by a working group, the full council will vote on the scheme, which will then be submitted to the member nations for final approval.

Then again, Eurobloggers who wish to use their real names may be out of luck. For better or for worse, Europe lacks a First Amendment. And Europe sure doesn't have a Judge Stewart Dalzell, who correctly predicted seven years ago that "the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."

Who's watching you? Get the latest on spy networks such as Echelon and Carnivore, as well as privacy issues for companies and individuals alike, at ZDNet UK's Privacy News Section.

Let the editors know what you think in the Mailroom.