Joris van Hoboken

The Financial Times has an article giving some insight into the debate that will have a huge impact on freedom of expression and access to information in the EU. The main point of discussion is whether fundamental rights have to be taken into account when end-users would be disconnected from the network, something that is being pushed as the new copyright enforcement strategy.

European Council diplomats seem to be thinking this is not the case:

A spokesman for the rotating EU presidency said: “None of the existing conventions and laws recognise internet access as a fundamental right on its own. It is simply one of the means of access to information.”

This is a flawed position. I think it is so clearly wrong that I hope it will backfire on them. Freedom of expression and freedom of communication are protected by Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter. Although there might not be an explicit fundamental right to access the Internet in most European Countries, the Internet is the most important communicative medium for European citizens. The Internet is NOT ‘simply one of the means to access information‘. European institutions recognized as much in a host of official documents. Access to the Internet is a prerequisite to communicate effectively, by email, VoIP, over social network sites, and to find and access information, ideas, and services, including an increasing variety of e-government services. EU Member state Estonia does recognize access to the Internet as a fundamental right explicitly.

The European Court of Human Rights recently stated:

“In light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information generally.”

To disconnect people from this communications and information network, thereby limiting its “important role in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information” is simply an interference with the right to freedom of expression and communication that need to be legitimized. The Parliament’s efforts, which would merely ensure that European citizens are not unduly banned from the net, not only deserves support, it could be strengthened. In fact, the current proposal by the Parliament is simply a restatement of fundamental legal principles that an interference with fundamental rights as serious as a ban from the Internet need to follow due process.

Clearly, the opposition from the Council has also to do with the lack of will of member states to harmonize procedural safeguards:

Opponents say this is an issue of legal enforcement over which Brussels has traditionally had few powers.

But, the procedural safeguards proposed by the Parliament are simply a reaction to the attempt to high-jack telecommunications regulation in the interests of copyright enforcement. Disconnecting users from the net is not a good solution. The European Parliament should stand by its efforts to curtail disproportionate enforcement strategies that impact on communicative freedoms.

A final meeting between the parliament, Commission and member states is due tonight, with no further opportunities to agree a deal before the elections without the entire package being reopened.

A spokesman for the Commission stressed that “a solution [on intellectual property protection] must be found, and we believe it will be found”.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 at 11:48 am and is filed under censorship, freedom of expression, governance, news, privacy.