KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=internetnews&StoryID=575665
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than a dozen business and civil liberties groups said on Wednesday that a proposed amendment to an international computer-crime law could limit free speech and expose high-tech firms to legal liability.
Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a letter to Bush Administration officials that they objected to a proposed amendment to the Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-Crime that seeks to place limits on racist or xenophobic speech.
"While we abhor both xenophobia and racism, this Protocol raises a number of fundamental procedural and substantive concerns to U.S. industry and public interest groups," the letter said.
South Africa, the United States, Canada, and Japan joined nearly 30 European countries in signing the agreement last fall to fight Internet-based crime, from hacking and child pornography to life-threatening felonies.
But negotiators failed to agree on hate-speech laws. Unlike the United States, which guarantees free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution, many European countries have laws against inciting racial hatred.
Under a compromise, hate-speech provisions are being negotiated in a separate side agreement.
But even if the United States does not sign the agreement, U.S. business and citizens could find their rights threatened online, the groups said.
U.S. Internet users could find themselves forced to comply with the hate-speech laws of other countries, while Internet providers could be forced to monitor their customers for possible violations, the groups said.
The groups thanked Attorney General John Ashcroft and Secretary of State Colin Powell for raising their concerns previously and urged them to stay involved in the negotiations, which are not open to outside parties.
The French government and Internet portal Yahoo Inc. YHOO.O have clashed over whether Yahoo has the right to sell Nazi paraphernalia on its auction site.
A French judge ordered Yahoo in 2000 to block French citizens' access to the material, but in November 2001 a U.S. judge said it did not need to comply with French laws limiting hate speech.
********
So, in this last paragraph, we've got a big problem. France orders Yahoo to do something. US says it doesn't need to. With the international and virtually boundaryless nature of cyberspace, how do we deal with things that affect every last one of us? When this European council makes it illegal to promote hate on the 'Net, how is it going to affect us? You know some of our members are racist in bent and have no compunction about going on and on. What happens when one nation or group of nations makes a law limiting what can be said on the 'Net and another nation or group of nations pretty much laughs in their face?
Is this a problem?
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than a dozen business and civil liberties groups said on Wednesday that a proposed amendment to an international computer-crime law could limit free speech and expose high-tech firms to legal liability.
Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a letter to Bush Administration officials that they objected to a proposed amendment to the Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-Crime that seeks to place limits on racist or xenophobic speech.
"While we abhor both xenophobia and racism, this Protocol raises a number of fundamental procedural and substantive concerns to U.S. industry and public interest groups," the letter said.
South Africa, the United States, Canada, and Japan joined nearly 30 European countries in signing the agreement last fall to fight Internet-based crime, from hacking and child pornography to life-threatening felonies.
But negotiators failed to agree on hate-speech laws. Unlike the United States, which guarantees free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution, many European countries have laws against inciting racial hatred.
Under a compromise, hate-speech provisions are being negotiated in a separate side agreement.
But even if the United States does not sign the agreement, U.S. business and citizens could find their rights threatened online, the groups said.
U.S. Internet users could find themselves forced to comply with the hate-speech laws of other countries, while Internet providers could be forced to monitor their customers for possible violations, the groups said.
The groups thanked Attorney General John Ashcroft and Secretary of State Colin Powell for raising their concerns previously and urged them to stay involved in the negotiations, which are not open to outside parties.
The French government and Internet portal Yahoo Inc. YHOO.O have clashed over whether Yahoo has the right to sell Nazi paraphernalia on its auction site.
A French judge ordered Yahoo in 2000 to block French citizens' access to the material, but in November 2001 a U.S. judge said it did not need to comply with French laws limiting hate speech.
********
So, in this last paragraph, we've got a big problem. France orders Yahoo to do something. US says it doesn't need to. With the international and virtually boundaryless nature of cyberspace, how do we deal with things that affect every last one of us? When this European council makes it illegal to promote hate on the 'Net, how is it going to affect us? You know some of our members are racist in bent and have no compunction about going on and on. What happens when one nation or group of nations makes a law limiting what can be said on the 'Net and another nation or group of nations pretty much laughs in their face?
Is this a problem?
