On 12 November, the German Lower House (Bundestag) debated in plenary on the merits of individual filtering or state-ordered blocking of illegal and harmful content. Germany is the only country in Western Europe (besides Switzerland) were governmental blocking-orders were issued to providers to prevent internet users from accessing information deemed illegal or indecent. Over 80 internet providers in Nordrein-Westfalen were ordered early in 2002 by the district government of Dusseldorf to block access to 4 foreign websites with neo-nazi content. Meanwhile, 2 of the 4 websites have been dropped from the blocking-order, including the distasteful, but certainly not illegal website rotten.com. More recently, the anti-censorship activist Alvar Freude was brought to court by the same regional government of Dusseldorf for posting hyper-links to censored websites with radical right-wing content on his website.

Though all parties seemed to agree that blocking orders are a very bad solution, the Red-Green government coalition rejected a motion from the Liberal FDP that would stop any blocking-orders and in stead promote end-user filtering, international agreements and self-regulatory measures by the industry. According to a report in the German e-zine Heise, it was a purely party-political decision to vote against the motion. The CDU-representative also agreed in the debate that any call for governmental blocking-orders would be completely out of proportion. "A free society with such wide-reaching technical possibilities also demands responsibility of individuals and of the industry," said Heinrich-Wilhelm Ronsöhr, according to Heise.

On 11 April 2002 the European Parliament unanimously adopted a declaration against the use of 'blocking' as a way of regulating content on the Internet. 460 MEP's were in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions. In its adoption of the report on the protection of minors and human dignity, parliament expressed concern "that recent decisions or strategies to block access to certain websites may result in the fragmentation of Internet access or the denial of access to legitimate content and therefore is not an effective European solution for combating illegal and harmful Internet content."

The report on the new Safer Internet Plus Programme, adopted unanimously by the Europarl Committee on Liberty, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on 16 November 2004, takes this view one step further. Blocking is not even considered an option, but filtering is not the holy grail either. From a strong focus on end-user empowerment the report stresses the need to take privacy principles into account when using filter programs. Also, in stead of financing the development of filter tools, LIBE wishes to dedicate funding to the performance and transparency of filter technologies. Adding to the transparency of the hotline system, the report demands that "the number and kind of webpages withdrawn by internet service providers as a result of information provided by the hotlines should be made public if possible." Also, internet providers are encouraged to handle Notice and Take Down requests in a transparent and conscientious matter.

Finally, the report adds an important dimension to the debate about harmful content. "It would be desirable to try to take account of the possible effect of new technologies, on their safe use by children when they are being developed, instead of trying to deal with any consequences of the new technologies after they have been devised. (...) However, it should be taken into account that not every product developed for the online world is intended for use by children."

Heise, 'Bundestag streitet über Web-Sperrungen und Filter' (12.11.2004)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/53214

LIBE report on Safer Internet Plus Programme 2005-2008, 2004/0023(COD) (16.11.2004)
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/PR/542/542475/...