Declan McCullagh sounds off on the Council of Europe's proposal for legislation requiring websites and the like to give a right of reply. It's an interesting proposal, but McCullagh is down on it on the grounds that it's rehashing the CDA fun and games of 1996ish. What amuses me about the article, though, is the references to Europe not having a First Amendment (Dude. Can't you just say "constitutionally-protected freedom of speech"?) which is, well, partly because we don't have a consitution here in Europe just yet, and as he points out himself the Council of Europe is more an advisory body than a legislative one in that its proposals do not actually have to be complied with. I'm also amused by the reference to the "cybercrime" proposal and its bolstering of "police and the national security goons who make up the world's eavesdrop establishment." Remind me again who runs Echelon, the world's biggest eavesdrop establishment? And what was that PATRIOT act doing, if not bolstering the same group(s) of people?
In short, dear Declan, please remove the rose-tinted shades. If your column had an enforced right-of-reply, I'd request that this be linked/added.
Note, I'm not saying I'm particularly in favour of the legislation myself, but the alternative is to resort to use of the libel laws. Which may be no bad thing, seeing as we're not yet a litigation-happy society here in the Old World.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
