European Parliament anti-filtering vote
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 08 April 2008
MEPs are calling on the European Commission and on the French and British governments, not to adopt the "three strikes and you're out" policies for ISPs. Christofer Fjellner and Michel Rocard, Guy Bono, Helga Trüpel, Francis Wurtz, Christa Prets and Katerina Batzeli moved an amendment to the so-called Bono report, asking for the Commission not to adopt policies for the Internet which are disproportionate and could infringe human and civic rights. They do not want Europe to adopt proposals for filtering and blocking of Internet content and the imposition of sanctions on users such as cutting off Internet access.
The move has no legislative importance but it could be important in positioning European policy on the Internet and ISPs. The so-called "three strikes and you're out" proposal would mean that ISPs would be asked to warn, suspend and cut off users who were alleged to be infringing copyright rules. The proposal was mooted in France, by the "mission Olivennes", and is being considered by the UK government.
The vote was on Wednesday April 9th and the amendment was accepted.
In France, the vote has sparked a political spat between one of the amendment's sponsors, Michel Rocard, and the sponsoring minister, Christine Albanel. Mme Albanel said, in an interview with
Le Monde Informatique, "Le Parlement européen n'a pas une bonne compréhension de ce que nous allons faire et nous allons le leur expliquer." (the European parliament has no understanding of what we are going to do and we are going to explain it to them).
M. Rocard replied in a follow-up article with the same newspaper , that "la coupure éventuelle de l'Internet est une punition collective, principe interdit par tous nos systèmes de droit. La lettre des textes est claire et il n'y a aucun problème sophistiqué de compréhension" (the eventual termination of Internet access is a collective punishment, a principle precluded by all of our legal systems. The meaning of the texts is clear and there is no sophisticated problem of understanding).
- Article Views: 9907
IPtegrity politics
- What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?