Magazine

Comments on:
Blogskeptics ponder regulation in Europe

Hi! Just to say that your article is a modern one, not like some I’ve read here, in Portugal.
Politicians must be conscious that their private life is under public opinion controle.
We can’t be criminal in one way and pretend to be virgins on the other.

Cheers!

By povoaoffline on 2008 07 16

Interesting article — and a bit scary. I find the idea of any kind of blog regulation horrifying, mostly because of the kinds of people who think it’s a good idea. The Tipper Gore type.

I am pleased to see that Povoa didn’t crumble under the pressure. I don’t doubt that the shutting down of their blog has given them the kind of publicity they could only have dreamed of before. So, perhaps we should be thankful for these hysterical censors, without whom we’d never have heard of so many great things…

By Stephen McMullin on 2008 08 07

If Mikko really said that about blogs, I am shocked that she could be so blatantly in favour of censorship-like tactics - isn’t she also a journalist by trade herself to my recollection? Who is to say what is “quality” information on the Web? This sends a signal to policymakers which says it is OK to impose whatever ‘standards’ they like and I am sure that is not the position of all in the European Parliament. Deeply worrying.....

By assumenothing on 2008 08 28

This article would call for a much more far-reaching (and possibly slightly polemic) response, for which I, unfortunately, do not have the time at this point. By way of general observation, it may be concluded, however, that the sensationalist title amounts to a brand of scaremongering that deals in the diffuse character of the evidence presented and has little to offer in terms of actual evidence or substantiated reflection. As a foregone conclusion, the EJC would be well-advised to consider whether it wants its institutional pedigree put at risk by an intern’s copy&paste journalism that reeks of a fundamental lack of professionalism.

Remarks on the details:

1) The Portuguese case: ‘The point is that, for better of worse, there can hardly be a separation of public and private when it comes to the lives of officials.’ Can’t there? It is a fairly well-established principle in the case-law that limitations to the right to privacy for persons ‘in the public eye’ must be accepted only where there is a significant public interest in the disclosure of facts about their private life. Quite clearly, the status as elects of their community does not merit a full disclosure approach, i.e. a complete derogation from their rights to privacy. It is quite amazing, but possibly a reflection of the unceasing interest in the private life of others characterizing today’s digital natives, that someone would bolster the above claim by referring an example of adultery, which, unless one lives in a puritan or otherwise restrictive society, cannot be said to have any relevance at all for the performance of an elected official’s duties. Secondly, it is not clear why the publication of libellous statements about the private lives of such officials should not, in principle, be capable of leading to the removal of a blog? Neither allusions to the self-regulatory power of the Internet community nor to the private character of the statements made provide justification in respect of the seemingly transgressive behaviour that the court found. It seems to be necessary under these circumstances to recall that the right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Rules on libel are the right instrument to strike a balance between competing interests in this right and that to personal reputation / private life. In certain European countries, defamation is sanctioned not only by civil, but also penal remedies. Arguing that the officials concerned could simply have exercised their right to reply, ‘and would certainly have gotten respect for that’, is besides the point. The question is whether one has to, in the first place, reply to a statement that is libelous in character and/or intent. Of course, the actual assessment depends on the facts of the case, which are not reported here. The comparison with Obama is based on such poor analogical reasoning that I have to wonder what universities teach their undergraduates these days. (And, again, how said undergraduates get to be endowed with the responsibility of publishing their ‘writings’ on the web site of the EJC.)

2) European blog regulation. This part of the story provides an example not only of poor analysis and confused thinking, but also of dishonest and biased reporting. First of all, the article starts out by speaking of a policy proposal when, in effect, MEPs’ own initiative reports have no role in initiating policy (as a graduate of European studies undoubtedly should be aware of). While there is ‘no real threat to bloggers’ privacy’ at hand, the article nevertheless states that the report plots to regulate blogs by ‘“clarifying their status” and labelling them “according to the professional and financial responsibilities and interests of their authors and publishers”’. Crucially, by way of selective quotation the article fails to highlight that the report (in point 9) speaks of *voluntary*, not compulsory labelling. Furthermore, a certain naivité on Ms Mikko’s behalf is insinuated because she does not appreciate the great self-regulatory powers of the Internet (of which this response, it might be added, is an example). Of course, at this point it may be opportune to point out that a voluntary labelling scheme manifests exactly such an approach. Beyond this apparent contradiction, it is worth to briefly examine the arguments cited in support of the claim to effective Internet self-regulation. What is presented here is a loose analogy to Darwinist evolutionary theory: the capable users themselves will weed out reprehensible web sites by recourse to reputation mechanisms, etc. Moreover, we are being told, there is a tendency among bloggers towards linking to web sites that they trust. Both of these arguments miss the fundamental point that there are certain types of content, which for whatever reason it may be deemed that nobody should be exposed to, i.e., decreasing the likelihood is not enough. One may observer a further slight contradiction in the argument invoked at this point that self-selection tends to produce connections among homogenous, trustworthy web sites, whilst claiming elsewhere that it is precisely the divergence of views that is reflected in these links. (Unless, of course, trust is a positive function of dissent.) The fact aside that Mikko’s report relates to a discussion that is not driven by privacy concerns, it is worth noting that the identification requirements that she refers to might well be implemented in a manner that would allow users to keep their pseudonymity online. The crucial question is more whether individuals should be allowed to hide behind a veil of complete anonymity sprouting possibly harmful views and opinions or distributing inappropriate and malicious content. Ultimately, it seems to be about time for policy discourse to focus on whether those pressing into the public sphere of the Internet should be held responsible for their expressions by having to adhere to similar, if not the same, rules by which professional journalists have to abide. But that ultimately would imply adherence to - standards, possibly of fairness and objectivity, to which ‘the Internet’, one might conclude after reading this piece, is not only not committed, but inherently opposed. Certainly a frightening perspective to be espoused by someone studying to become a journalist…

By Soren Hansen on 2008 09 01

Thanks for your reading my article and commenting on it.

@Soren Hansen:

1. I welcome you disagreeing with me and pointing out possible weak spots in my argument.

2. As you are apparently aware, I am in a process of learning. Dealing with counter-arguments like yours will only help me get better.

3. This piece was not intended as the ultimate analysis and solution for all freedom-of-blogs-related issues. Rather, it was supposed to call attention to the issue and introduce some relevant things to think about. Debate is what this is all about. Most people have no idea this is even an issue.

4. I don’t appreciate you taking a personal tone with me. Please stay on topic don’t infer that I am generally incapable. You just don’t know me or my capabilities well enough from one piece of writing to condemn me (or the EJC, or my university for that matter).

5. I am glad that the EJC gives youngsters the possibility of publishing their work. One of their main aims is journalism training, so I can see why they would do that.

By Cornelius Rahn on 2008 09 04

i need your help because i studying communication and need experiences of people of the carrer of journalist, because is necesary for my carrer.

i hope your answer. thanks

By jocelin on 2008 09 30

• Home |
• Seminars  |
• Events |
• Media Landscape |
• Newsroom|
• Media News|
• Resources

Terms of service and Privacy policy.

Copyright © 1992-2007 European Journalism Centre. All rights reserved.

Valid XHTML and CSS.

European Journalism Centre

Sonneville-lunet 10
6221KT Maastricht
The Netherlands

Tel. : +31 43 325 40 30
Fax : +32 2 400 42 20

E-mail: info[at]ejc.net