RSSEU Parliament approves law ensuring Internet access as a fundamental right
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 6, 2009, 7:05 PM
For years, the European Commission has been planning a comprehensive package of telecommunications reform, with the aim of creating a "bill of rights" spelling out what individual European citizens should have a right to do online, and what kind of business environment they should expect. For instance, consumers should have the right to change their carriers while keeping their old phone numbers, reads paragraph 1 of the Telecoms Reform bill; and in paragraph 3, when a member state imposes a measure that a telecom business believes threatens free competition, it may raise the issue before a higher, continental authority that may trump national lawmakers.
But it's paragraph 10 that's been the cause of considerable debate. After the EC submitted the reform bill to the European Parliament (the lower house of the EU's legislative branch) it amended that paragraph with stronger language about the rights of a European citizen to Internet access -- language that attempts to quite literally equate the right of access to the right of free speech. Last November, the text of that amendment looked like this: "No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened where the ruling may be subsequent."
That language met with opposition from Parliament members who supported French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose "three strikes" bill against alleged IP pirates was re-introduced in his country's parliament last week, after suffering a defeat there just one week earlier.
At the same time Pres. Sarkozy's bill was being resurrected, EU Parliament members came to agreement on compromise language about access assurance. At issue there was how best to phrase the part about "the judicial authorities" -- essentially, how to determine who gets to take that fundamental right away, and for what reasons. According to press reports, part of the debate revolved around whether a hardening of the language should be tucked in paragraph 10 itself, or perhaps in the preamble -- in an area of the bill that could be treated like the "small print" accompanying a pharmaceutical company's promise of instant relief.
"The rules therefore provide that any measures taken regarding access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, including in relation to privacy, freedom of expression and access to information and education, as well as due process," reads a dispatch from the EC this morning. "The new rules also clarify that the final word on this important matter of Internet access must be with a judicial authority."
But even with the support of both houses of the EU legislature, the bill cannot become law without the approval of the Council of Telecoms Ministers, which represent the collective regulatory power of the member states with respect to telecommunications. The Council has already voiced its opinion on telecoms matters in recent months; last month, for instance, it suggested watering down the part about the creation of an oversight authority with the power to nullify measures such as Sarkozy's, replacing it instead with a kind of grievance forum with only the power to render "opinions." The Council has appeared worried that the bill's reference to "a judicial authority" leaves open the door for bestowing arbitration power in personal rights matters to a tribunal, making it a kind of appeals court for individual citizens who may feel infringed upon by Sarkozy and leaders of other member states.
In her trademark style, European Commissioner for the Information Society and Media Viviane Reding effectively laid down the law for the Telecoms Ministers, saying that a vote against telecoms reform for this reason could be construed by their respective constituents as no less than a vote against fundamental human rights.
"Now the ball is in the court of the Council of Telecoms Ministers to decide whether or not to accept this package of reforms," stated Comm. Reding this morning. "This amendment is an important restatement of the fundamental rights of EU citizens. For many, it is of very high symbolic and political value. I call on the Council of Ministers to assess the situation very carefully, also in the light of the importance of the telecoms reform for the sector and for the recovery of our European economy. The Telecoms Council on 12 June should be used for a political discussion on whether agreement on the package is still possible or whether the discussion will have to start again with the new European Parliament in autumn."
And yet again people are suckered in and cannot comprehend the big picture. What does this all boil down to? The Monetary System, which is corrupt and an outdated mode of social conduct.
Year after year our so called "rights" are being stripped down to the point of non exsistance.
The world population needs to come together and realize that our Civilization need to become 'civilized' by eliminating the monetary system.
Score: 0
|There does need to be some protection of people's rights to internet and telecommunications access. It is hard to live in today's society without some level of access. It is also hard to live without going online and being tracked, so more privacy protections are needed.
That said, I think private companies have generally done a good job on the access front. We may pay too much, but huge investment has gone into making high-speed internet access available to huge portions of the world's population in a very short period of time. If governments really want to increase access, they should stop charging billions for wireless spectrum, and instead open it up to innovation and price competition.
And of course, people need access to porn:
http://video.google.com/...id=-6909308001431055875
Score: 0
|"It is hard to live in today's society without some level of access."
It's hard to live in today's society without a steady income as well, I suppose we should just offer everyone a government stipend from now on?
It's hard to live in today's society without a car, so I guess we should just start giving those away too?
Ease is NOT a right. It's not the government's job to make your life simple. (They want you to *be* simple, and making it so you don't have to (think/work/be responsible) is one way to do it...)
"And of course, people need access to porn:
http://video.google.com/...909308001431055875";
Man...internet filter @ work... Curses!
Score: 1
|Ease is not a right but an increasing number of services (right up to SCHOOLS, at leas tin this country) now assume that you have internet access.
That's a decided paradigm s***.
Score: 0
|Depends on the location of the school. Many rural schools (at least in this country) have changed little since before the intarwebz.
Score: 0
|This is rather ironic, given that members of the EU are currently petitioning to take control of ICANN from the United States, given they think that while the US has done a good job, the IPV4 assignments can be done by a group of nations better than they US could do.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here, one that I'm not too keen to seeing given that it's whack jobs like AU, CH and even the UK on the other side of the spectrum wanting to stop the evil sex fiends from putting pornography on the net, or prevent VOIP from reaching cellphone providers... Let's not forget all the evils of pirating and Pirate Bay, and caps on Broadband that's going on as well..
Hmmm.. Makes me wonder what the true agenda is here...
Score: -1
|Everything is a "right" nowadays ... guaranteed by some well meaning Liberal in government, paid for by everyone else.
Score: -1
|It's all there, man...Life, Liberty...and the pursuit of Porn. ;)
Score: 0
|"It's all there, man...Life, Liberty...and the pursuit of Porn. ;)"
Ya gotta like it. :)
Score: 0
|"Everything is a "right" nowadays ... "
Yeah, yer right.
I'm particularly amused by the whole ridiculous "right to bear arms" BS - or at least what it's been twisted and perverted into by the NRA and other lunatics from the original intent (night and day from what it is now).
Score: 1
|Never understood people's annoyance with the "Right to bear arms" thing.
So I have a right to walk around with a gun...
Doesn't mean I have the right to start firing it willy-nilly, shooting random people (or even predetermined people :p), or well, basically *using* it at all.
*shrug*
If someone wants to have one, I've got no problem with it as long as they obey the laws regarding it's use (and take responsibility if they mess up).
Score: 0
|You should be able to take your s*** off any time you want. Now, arming bears is another thing altogether. [smiles]
Ironically enough it is the right only while one is a member of a well REGULATED militia (The only militia that meets this requirement in America is the National Guard.)
Did you know that the NRA doesn't tell people that the laws were far more restrictive in regards to gun control during the early days after the revolution than they are today?
The only people who could own a firearm were white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, male landowners.
Score: 1
|"You should be able to take your s*** off any time you want. Now, arming bears is another thing altogether."
Mmm...Bears with lasers attached to their....arms.
"it is the right only while one is a member of a well REGULATED militia"
Militia was never defined, nor was it specific as to the "the people" being *part* of "the militia".
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There are interpretations ranging from Judge Thomas (The preceding offers no limitation of the following), to Scalia (Where I assume you got the National Guard). I highly doubt such a topic will be settled here, of all places. ;)
Score: 0
|That's because it ain't a right - it's a privilege and an oft abused one. A right is like the right to draw breath. You gt that with the model. All else is granted.
"So I have a right to walk around with a gun... "
Absolutely - it came with the model. :)
The stated intent of the whole right to bear arms thing was to allow the citizenry to rise up against corrupt government and take their rights back. That's never been done (although God knows it should have been some time over the last eight years). Similarly, it was to protect against foreign invaders, a concept that is at best ludicrous today (redneck survivalist wet dreams to the contrary). Instead it's become a caricature for the so-called survivalists and a panacea for settling domestic disputes. I think the Founding Fathers would be quite upset - even the noted duellist. :)
Score: 0
|The National Guard IS the only well regulated militia in the USA. It didn't have to be defined. Its just the only example available.
Part of the problem in America now is the 2nd amendment which was really only intended for the time it was written in. The founding fathers would never have dreamed of the world today where the State would have much better means of control than being armed truly couldn't stop if it became necessary. It is now more of a hindrance than a help. Where most gun fanatics are their own worse enemies.
Countries that don't have such a right also have very low violent crime rates in comparison even when taking pop size into account. Gun ownership in most places is a privilege to be earned. Hell I even earn a marksmanship badge while was in The Scouts.
Score: 0
|@roj:
"A right is like the right to draw breath. You gt that with the model. All else is granted."
Um, no.
**All** rights and freedoms are born. Breathing, owning property, walking in public...and yes, gun ownership. The government( of the US) doesn't "grant" rights. The government was founded to *protect* them. The *only* reasoning by which the government is allowed to *limit* our rights is due to what is known as "clear and present danger"; If the exercise of one's rights presents unreasonable danger to others or restricts the rights of others unreasonably, the government can *limit* the ability of the people to exercise those rights.
The Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights. It merely states reasoning by which the government cannot *limit* certain rights the founders thought were expressly important.
The difference here (back on topic) is that they are walking a very fine line. Businesses have rights, taxpayers have rights, and they seem to be heading towards violating both of them...(with no "clear and present danger or when those businesses and taxpayers aren't limiting the rights of others). Now, EU!=US, so their laws and the limitations on how they can limit people's right is obviously different, my opinions regarding this are from the standpoint of my beliefs as a US citizen.
Score: 1
|well said. many people have a perverted ideology of how the Constitution was intended to be interpreted. All US citizens are born with the rights listed in the Constitution, but not BECAUSE of the Constitution, but b/c they are free men. The Constitution places limits on *Government* and assures the peoples' rights listed in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution protects the people FROM the government, not the government from the people.
the 2nd amendment contains 2 related but separate ideas. The right to bear arms and the right to raise a citizen army. A militia can be, and often is, interpreted as one that's not even in existence right now. This idea of a militia, as found in the 2nd amendment, is really the idea that the people can raise arms against their government if the government fails to follow the limitations set for it in the Constitution. it doesnt necessarily mean to protect itself from outside forces (the Fed govt is already granted the right to raise a national army in the Constitution) and has been interpreted by many to be the protection FROM the government. Thomas Jefferson himself stated the need for the people to be able to overthrow the government in extremely severe cases and more or less reset everything back to the Constitution.
the founding fathers knew that power corrupts. they didnt trust anyone in power, not even themselves. this is why they set up the constitution unlike any other in the world, to LIMIT the government from the people.
i dont see how Internet is a right for any person in the world if applied through the US Constitution. The Constitution provides for the rights of Life, Liberty, and the *Pursuit* of Happiness. it doesnt grant everyone the right to be happy, only that they need to have the ability pursue it themselves without the government stifling their ambitions or persecuting them.
Score: 0
|