EU committee passes bill to require licensing of bloggers

The following item comes from an apparently British blog, “thinendofthewedge,” and was passed on by someone who says the news was originally reported in Swedish news. (The blog does not provide a source for the information, but the Brussels Journal—see below—links the text of the bill, which I quote in full.)

Approved by 33 votes to one, the EU’s Culture Committee has passed a draft report on blogging which could lead to all European bloggers being required to gain an official stamp of approval simply to exist.

Concerned that blogs could prove a useful tool for the “less principled”, Estonian Socialist MEP Marianne Mikko (author of the draft report) said: “They are in position to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace”. She added, “I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why. ”

“They are in position to pollute cyberspace.” How reminiscent are Marianne Mikko’s words of the Koran 5:33:

The recompense of those who fight God and his messenger and seek to corrupt the land is that they will be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off on alternate sides or that they shall be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this world. In the hereafter, they will have great retribution.

However, according to Brussels Journal, the draft bill only “encourages” the “voluntary” labeling of blogs so that readers may know who the authors are, what their background is, and so on: The link below is to a pdf version of the resolution passed by the committee.

Brussels Wants “Voluntary” Labeling of Blogs

From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Fri, 2008-06-13 00:04

A quote from a motion for a resolution at the European Parliament:

(…) Whereas weblogs are an increasingly common medium for self-expression by media professionals as well as private persons, the status of their authors and publishers, including their legal status, is neither determined nor made clear to the readers of the weblogs, causing uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits, (…)

[The European Parliament] suggests clarifying the status, legal or otherwise, of weblogs and encourages their voluntary labelling according to the professional and financial responsibilities and interests of their authors and publishers; (…)

Ironically, the resolution speaks repeatedly that its concern is the maintainance of “pluralism” of points of view, with the implication that blogs are run by businesses that somehow reduce pluralism. Let’s not respond at the moment to the idea that it’s the state’s responsibility to assure “pluralism” of ideas. The obvious, Orwellian lie here is the suggestion that blogs reduce pluralism, whereas in reality they are often the only source of pluralism in the increasingly one-party state of Eurabia.

Here is the resolution, minus its opening section which states all the previous laws on which the resolution is based. Notice that the resolution has no fewer than 23 (A through W) “whereases.” Notice its thoroughly bureaucratic, anti-human language. Notice the way its drift is toward control over blogs, but it doesn’t say so in plain words, even as it makes continual noises of appreciation for the “freedom” of the new media.

The EU must be destroyed.

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union (2007/2253(INI))

[…]

A. whereas the European Union has confirmed its commitment to the defence and the promotion of media pluralism, as an essential pillar of the right to information and freedom of expression enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which remain fundamental principles in preserving democracy,

B. whereas any consideration of media pluralism must take into account both pluralism of ownership (external pluralism) and pluralism of content (internal pluralism),

C. whereas the unrestricted concentration of ownership might jeopardise pluralism and cultural diversity and whereas in certain markets it is approaching a limit whereby pluralism will no longer be automatically guaranteed by free market competition,

D. whereas European treaties guarantee the right to establish and own businesses,

E. whereas new technologies, communications and information services should enhance media pluralism and cultural diversity,

F. whereas the primary concern of media businesses may be financial profit, media remains an ideological and political tool of considerable influence, which should not be treated solely on economic terms,

G. whereas large media enterprises have built substantial and often dominant positions in the markets of the Member States which acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007,

H. whereas the contribution of multinational media enterprises to the technical equipment and working capital in the new Member States has been essential in revitalising the media landscape, the investment in human capital has stayed below the level necessary for improving the working conditions and the quality of work of the media professionals,

I. whereas EU competence to act on media pluralism is confined to the area of competition law and whereas the financial scale of activities directed at vertical and horizontal concentration of media ownership in the most recent Member States of the EU has not reached the limits where EU competition law would apply,

J. whereas media consumers should have access to a wide choice of content from highquality journalism to light entertainment,

K. whereas media creators strive to produce the highest quality content possible under given conditions, the conditions are not uniformly satisfactory in all member states,

L. whereas an increasing proportion of journalists find themselves employed under precarious conditions, lacking social guarantees common on the normal job market and whereas these conditions are more likely to occur in the new Member States,

M. whereas commercial publications are increasingly utilising user-generated content, especially audiovisual content for a nominal fee, raising questions of unfair competition among media professionals,

N. whereas the increased use and reliance on user generated content may adversely affect the privacy of citizens and public figures by creating conditions of permanent surveillance,

O. whereas weblogs are an increasingly common medium for self-expression by media professionals as well as private persons, the status of their authors and publishers, including their legal status, is neither determined nor made clear to the readers of the weblogs, causing uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits,

P. whereas the Member States have wide scope for interpreting the remit of the public service media and its financing and whereas the commercial media has expressed concerns over unfair competition,

Q. whereas the public service media has a noticeable market presence only in the audiovisual and non-linear areas and whereas often the public service media of the EU Member States suffers from both inadequate funding and political pressure,

R. whereas in certain markets the public service media is a dominant player in terms of both quality and market share,

S. whereas the public service media needs a certain stable market share to fulfil its mission, market share should not be considered an end in itself,

T. whereas new media channels have emerged over the last decade and whereas a rising share of advertising revenues going to internet outlets is a source of concern for print media outlets,

U. whereas the new media landscape is dominated by established public service and private providers,

V. whereas cases where freedom of expression conflicts with respect for religious and other beliefs have recently acquired more prominence,

W. whereas the level of media literacy among the citizens of the European Union is below desirable levels and awareness of the need for media literacy is low,

1. Urges the Commission and the Member States to safeguard media pluralism, to ensure that all EU citizens can access free and diversified media in all Member States and to recommend improvements when needed;

2. Suggests in this respect the creation of independent media ombudsmen in the Member States;

3. Welcomes the efforts to create a charter for media freedom and strive for its Europe-wide acceptance;

4. Stresses the need to institute monitoring and implementation systems for media pluralism based on reliable and impartial indicators;

5. Agrees that the level at which media pluralism is measured should be by an individual Member State;

6. Stresses the need for the EU and Member State authorities to ensure journalistic and editorial independence by appropriate and specific legal and social guarantees as well as for the media owners to follow the best practice in each market where they operate;

7. Proposes the introduction of fees commensurate with the commercial value of the usergenerated content as well as ethical codes and terms of usage for user-generated content in commercial publications;

8. Welcomes the dynamics and diversity brought into the media landscape by the new media and encourages responsible use of new channels such as mobile TV;

9. Suggests clarifying the status, legal or otherwise, of weblogs and encourages their voluntary labelling according to the professional and financial responsibilities and interests of their authors and publishers;

10. Recommends the inclusion of media literacy among the 9 basic competences and supports the development of the European core curriculum for media literacy;

11. Encourages the disclosure of ownership of the media outlets to help to understand the aims and background of the publisher;

12. Encourages the Member States to ensure that the application of EU competition law to the media as well as to the internet and communication technology sector facilitates and promotes media pluralism, and to take adequate remedies where the concentration of ownership has a negative impact on media pluralism;

13. Recommends that the regulations governing state aid are implemented in a way allowing the public service media to fulfil its function in a dynamic environment, while avoiding unfair competition leading to impoverishment of the media landscape;

14. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

- end of initial entry -

Sebastian writes:

Thanks for covering the pending EU “recommendation.” The buzz is that this is the first overt attempt at full regulation. Please note especially Article 11, “to help to understand the aims and background of the publisher,” and read it in conjunction with 12, “to ensure that the application of EU competition law to the media as well as to the internet.” EU competition law allows measures we would consider unconstitutional, like raiding a business and confiscating documents using a warrant obtained with less than probable cause. Now consider that the “aims and background” of a blogger can include anyone convicted or suspected of a hate crime or of “racism, xenophobia, homophobia and Islamophobia,” and the groundwork is set. I would not interpret the measure so cynically if I didn’t know a little of the way the EU has worked for years now. I link a letter received by an anti-gay marriage group here in the states from a British reader who’d like to see the website’s authors incarcerated.

Tim W. writes:

Note the use of the terms “pluralism” and “cultural diversity” in the same sentence. In the non-blog world, we already know what this means. It means some self-declared sheik or shah can spew hatred against the indigenous European population from a bullhorn all day, and not only be permitted to do so, but be provided with subsidized housing and a welfare check. Meanwhile, Brigitte Bardot gets fined $25,000 (approximately) for saying Muslims are pushy.

Using those two terms together is nothing short of Orwellian. You can’t have political pluralism in a society obsessed with cultural diversity. To the Eurosocialists, pluralism means promoting diversity, not objecting to it. It’s devolving the same way in Canada, as well as here in the states

Evan H. writes:

Don’t forget the plan to enlarge the EU to cover North Africa and the Middle East, as described on your site, as well as the proposed European Arrest Warrant, which lists “computer related crime” as one of the offenses.

How long until an unlicensed blogger gets extradited to Egypt?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 26, 2008 05:02 AM | Send