This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ENDitorial: Warum es gut war, Netzsperren vorzuschlagen

Now that the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee has voted again (yesterday, 12 July 2011, by 50 votes to zero) against the introduction of mandatory EU-wide Internet blocking, it is worth considering the huge value of the German blocking proposal by then Minister Von Der Leyen and the subsequent EU-level blocking proposal by Commissioner Malmström. These two women did more for the anti-blocking campaign than they frequently receive credit for.

When asked to introduce blocking "voluntarily", the German Internet industry took the brave decision, unlike ISPs in countries like Denmark, Sweden and the UK, to demand a democratic process and a law before blocking could be introduced. This led to a German draft law and extensive public debate over many months. This public debate led to an understanding that protection of children online is about effective policy and not populism. As a result, blocking was rejected in Germany and the German government was in a position to fight strongly against blocking on an EU level. Without Minister Von Der Leyen's proposal, the German government would not have been in a position to take a crucial stand against blocking and the outcome could have been very different. Indeed, without Minister von der Leyen's blocking proposal, the German victims' association against Internet blocking (MOGiS e.V.) would probably not have been founded and its energetic and effective work on a European level would never have been done.

Only days after being appointed as Home Affairs Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström announced that blocking would be included in the Child Exploitation Directive. This gave activists the maximum amount of time to campaign against the proposal, from March 2010 until now. Without the Commission's proposal, a campaign would have been difficult because it would have been a campaign against blocking in a legislative proposal that hadn't actually proposed blocking!

However, towards the end of the legislative process in the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, it is very likely that blocking would have been proposed by some MEPs. This proposal would have been much stronger politically because, firstly, the anti-blocking campaign would have had to react in a far shorter timeframe and, secondly, it would have involved the Parliament deciding about a proposal that came from inside the Parliament, rather than from another institution.

In short, Minister Van Der Leyen's proposal was essential in ensuring the game-changing position of the German government in the EU Council of Ministers, while Commissioner Malmström's proposal was crucial in ensuring that the European Parliament was given the maximum amount of time to analyse blocking before coming to the inevitable conclusion that it is the wrong answer.

Commissioner Malmström's proposal has also had other very positive outcomes. As a result of the blocking proposal, the pre-existing failures of the European Commission to take action against online crimes against children became more obvious. This led to strong international efforts to address measures against child abuse websites in the United States and Russia. Within weeks of the proposal being made, the European Commission launched a joint action with the United States to address this problem - action which involved the highest levels in both the Commission and the US administration.

Statistics to be published shortly will show that delays in addressing child abuse websites in the USA have been hugely reduced - with, for example, the time taken by the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to process international law enforcement reports dropping from 5.12 days in May 2010 to 0.50 days in May 2011, with overall processing time dropping from 6.85 days to 0.91 days. The Russian child abuse hotlines are similarly reporting major improvements. Ironically, therefore, the Commission's blocking proposal has had the effect of making blocking more pointless, more disproportionate and more indefensible than it has ever been. Of course, while removal of child abuse websites is infinitely better than blocking them, we must remain vigilant that the removal of such sites is seen as an end in itself and that due process of law is followed to ensure that criminal activity is investigated and prosecuted.

In summary, if blocking had not been proposed by Minister Van Der Leyen and Commissioner Malmström, it is quite possible that we would now have EU-wide blocking. If Commissioner Malmström had not proposed blocking, the major improvements that mean that blocking is even more pointless than ever would never have happened. It was good for them to propose blocking, because that's why we do not have EU-wide blocking.

US, EU against Internet child porn (12.04.2010)
http://news.hostexploit.com/hosts-and-registrars-news/3629-us-eu-again...

Russian hotline
http://www.friendlyrunet.ru/en/index.phtml

EDRi blocking booklet
http://www.edri.org/internet-blocking-brochure

Abuse victims' association against Internet blocking
http://mogis-verein.de/eu/

(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)