Amendment 138 forces European Parliament rules check-up
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 22 January 2009
Report from Brussels
The controversial Amendment 138 has set EU officials searching for the rule books as they attempt to work out how to re-introduce it in the Second Reading of the Telecoms Package.
Amendment 138 states that sanctions cannot be applied against Internet users without a prior judicial ruling. It positions itself against measures such as graduated response or 3 strikes, where it is proposed to sanction users without going to court.
It was dropped without explanation by the Council of Ministers in their political agreement last November, but it is understood that MEP Guy Bono plans to re-introduce it. The rules for MEPs to table amendments in Second Reading are different from the first reading, where 40 signatures are required. It seems that even
those who work deep within the corridors of the EU offices are unclear how to do it.
What is clear is that Amendment 138 has created a political sticking point. Any action by the EU on copyright enforcement and graduated response measures cannot proceed while it lies in the balance.
Part of the difficulty relates to the intervention last year by French President Sarkozy, which forced the European Commission to support Amendment 138 and pushed it up the ladder of politically important points in the Telecoms Package. It has come to signify a European Parliament position against graduated response, and specifically against cutting users off the Internet as a sanction to support copyright enforcement, backing up the position taken with the Fjellner-Rocard amendment in the Bono report last April.
Original reporting by iptegrity.com! Please remember to attribute us!
- Article Views: 10696
IPtegrity politics
- 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
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
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.
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?