[A2k] Net Freedoms in Europe: Recapitulating the capitulation

[Philippe Aigrain (perso)]

Ludovic,

I am surprised to read you stating that the protection of the right to
access the Internet, recognized by both our constitutional court and the
Lambrinidis report of the European Parliament as a practical condition
for the exercize of freedom of expression and communication in our times
has nothing to do with the European regulatory framework for the
telecommunications in Europe.

Even if you believe it, this does not authorize you to misrepresent the
position of La Quadrature du Net. We always defended amendment 138
because -despite some weaknesses in wording- it instantiated long
affirmed rights (such as the right to a fair trial recognized in ECHRC,
the European Charter of Fundamental Rights) in a specific context. This
context is both regulatory (the telecom packet) and political (the will
of (still) powerful lobbies and several large European countries to
introduce three-strikes laws or private procedures that create mass
sanctions on the basis of weak evidence). Yes, the rights we stand for
have been defended for long; but yes also, they need a new translation
in our times. It may look less essential for France because of the
decision of Conseil constitutional, but we receive strong messages from
the civil society groups of the UK, Germany, Italy or Sweden not to drop
support to amendment 138 or an efficient replacement.

Philippe Aigrain

Ludovic P=C3=A9net wrote:
> On sam., 2009-10-31 at 15:35 +0100, J=C3=A9r=C3=A9mie ZIMMERMANN - La Qua=
drature
> du Net wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-freedoms-in-europe-recapitulating-the=
-capitulation
> Well, it is most interesting to read that not introducing dispositions
> that have nothing to do with the "Telecoms package" is a "capitulation".
>
> As indicated in the above link, this started with an attempt to
> introduce three strikes amendement in this european bill. So, can you
> explain us what less do we have after this battle ?
>
> On a legal point of view, I can not see the loss. I was even explained
> by people from "quadradure du net" that the European Legislation was
> already saying 138, but in a less direct way. And better leave along the
> questions on the wording of 138...
>
> I can not see the loss on a political point of view too. Excepted,
> maybe, if you live in a wonderful world where the European Parliament
> really co-decides. In this case : wake up, this is not the reality. We
> were several French subscribers to this list to call to vote against the
> proposed European constitution in 2005. One key point of our call was
> that co-decision was (and is still) flawed. The European Parliament does
> not decide, neither co-decides. It can only "nuke" a directive. That was
> obviously not the way to go with the "Telecoms Package".
>
> It is up to us to interprete the result of this process as success or
> failure. And your interpretation is, on a political basis, no less than
> a blank check for national governments to implement three strikes-like
> legislations.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ludovic
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
>