Posted on 12/14/2002 6:32:00 PM PST by heyhey
Europe's ISPs Overrun with Website Take-Down Orders
LONDON (Reuters) - Europe's Internet service providers (ISPs) say they are overwhelmed by a barrage of requests to take from their networks Web sites that violate copyright or contain defamatory statements.
Under the E-Commerce Directive, a European Union (news - web sites) law enacted this year, ISPs are compelled to remove from their computer servers Web sites that carry copyright-protected materials such as films, songs and pictures, or those that contain libels or so-called hate speech.
In the case of copyright concerns, the law is primarily designed to protect media companies who have seen all manner of protected materials appear on Internet sites free of charge. Under the directive, a media company needs only to notify an ISP of an offending site and the ISP is compelled to take it down.
But ISPs have complained that the law gives copyright owners broad powers to take down an ISP customers' Web sites. Plus, they argue, it requires the ISP to make a snap, and potentially costly, judgment about copyright violations.
The ISPs want legal protections in case they remove a site that turns out to be law-abiding.
"It's a potentially big legal problem," said Joe McNamee, a spokesman for the European Internet Services Providers Association in Brussels. "The ISP just wants to avoid having to play the role of judge and jury."
The debate has raged in a largely theoretical sphere until now. ISPA's UK body has begun collecting data from its UK members about take-down requests in an effort to clarify the matter before presenting their findings to lawmakers.
To date, the group found that 54 percent of take-down notices pertain to copyright infringement claims, while 27 percent were related to defamation complaints, meaning that roughly four out of every five take-downs could trigger a law suit.
In cases where a site contains content that is clearly illegal, like child pornography, the law is cut and dried. A 1996 British law, for example, stipulates that the ISP take down the site immediately without incurring a legal risk, said Brian Ahearne, spokesman for ISPA UK.
ISPs are looking for similar protections with the more ambiguous requests. Ahearne said ISPA UK plans to present its full findings to Britain's Department of Trade and Industry.
Similar initiatives are being discussed elsewhere in Europe. The EU-funded industry group RightsWatch is also working to develop a more straightforward policy that it plans to present to the European Commission (news - web sites).
In brief, of course some European ISP is going to "take down" FreeRepublic should someone be so foolish as to utilize some hapless European ISP for web-hosting duties.
Mon Dec 2, 5:00 PM ET
Michelle Madigan, Medill News Service
WASHINGTON--As European leaders move to ban Internet hate speech and seek support from the United States, civil liberties groups charge that the proposal would violate free-speech rights.
The Council of Europe--not to be confused with the European Union (news - web sites)--comprises 44 European countries, plus a handful of non-European nations. Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States have observer status only, but their comments are sought.
The council recently voted to outlaw "acts of a racist and xenophobic nature conducted through computer systems." The measure was added to the Convention on Cybercrime, criminalizing hacking, intellectual property violations, and use of computers to commit fraud. The first set of rules was signed in November 2001.
The non-European members are being asked to endorse the hate-speech provision at a meeting in late January.
Broad Ban 'Terrifying'
The Justice Department (news - web sites) has indicated it will not support the broader restrictions because of concern that it is incompatible with First Amendment rights to free speech.
The agreement defines racist and xenophobic material as "written material, images or other representations of ideas or theories advocating, promoting or inciting hatred, discrimination or violence against individuals or groups, based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin, or religion."
"It's a terrifying prospect," says James Gattuso, a research fellow for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "It's inherently dangerous for governments to define what appropriate speech is. You can't define or limit speech without chilling speech."
The protocol is subject to interpretation, he notes. "If you have a cartoon criticizing French foreign policy, would the French government have recourse?" he asks. "I don't see anything that would exclude that."
The Electronic Privacy Information Center suspects that the protocol is aimed at right-wing racist speech, says Sarah Andrews, EPIC's research director. She thinks it targets white supremacist or antiabortion groups. A separate proposal on revisionism would prohibit speech about Holocaust denials, she notes.
But either ban is drastically contrary to the U.S. practice of protecting even hate speech. For example, an antiabortion group ran a Web site called the Nuremberg Files, which listed doctors who performed abortions. As antiabortion activists killed these doctors, they were crossed out on the Web site. Critics said the Web site incited violence, and a lower court agreed; but upon appeal the Web site was declared to be protected by the First Amendment. Under the Council of Europe protocol, the Web site would be illegal, Andrews says.
Child pornography is anything but cut and dried. There are a lot of gray areas in that. Now the isp situation, I think there is going to be a large number of very happy attorneys.
There hasn't yet been a handful of abortionists killed by Right to Life people.
the U.N
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.