A German comedian was ordered to take down his parody website about the German Federal Chancellor (Bundeskanzler). The comedian, Joseph Pohl, operated the website for almost 5 years. Two weeks ago, he received an email from the Chancellors press office, accusing him of infringing on their trademark. Even though the site is as clear a parody as parodies come, with pictures of the comedian on his travels and software solutions for job unemployment, the Chancellors entourage is definitely not amused. They warn Pohl in this email not to undermine the dignity of the office with cheap sarcasm.

Pohls email with a request for mercy was answered by a fax threatening him with a court case.

The Council of Europe (45 member states) is finalizing a recommendation on the 'right of reply' in on-line media. Through a right of reply persons and organisations can reply to articles in the media in which they have been portrayed or criticized. Many countries in Europe already have a limited right of reply for printed media.

A committee of specialists has finalized the draft recommendation during a 16-18 June meeting. The recommendations are not limited to professional on-line media but "any natural or legal person or other entity whose main activity is to engage in the collection, editing and dissemination of information to the public via the Internet".

At the end of a two-day conference in Amsterdam on internet-related perils to freedom of expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Freimut Duve has issued a call to take up a strong position towards free flow of information on the internet. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the largest regional security organization in the world with 55 participating States from Europe, Central Asia and North America.

"Freedom of the Media as a human right is universal.

The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has adopted a Declaration on freedom of communication on the internet. The text contains 7 principles that underline the principle of freedom of expression and condemn practices aimed at restricting or controlling internet access, especially for political reasons. Remarkably, the 7th principle is the right of anonymity. "In order to ensure protection against online surveillance and to enhance the free expression of information and ideas, member states should respect the will of users of the Internet not to disclose their identity."

The declaration also deals with the freedom to provide services via the internet and the liability of providers. The provision of services via the internet should not be made subject to specific licence schemes, as still is the case in many countries outside of the European Union, nor should providers be obliged to monitor content on the internet. Closely following articles 12, 13 and 14 of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), the Council states that service providers should not be held liable for data they are merely transporting. In case of hosting, liability should only begin after the provider has become aware of the illegality of hosted material (to be defined in national law) and does not remove or disable access. Much clearer though than in the E-Commerce Directive, the Council of Europe underlines the need to protect the freedom of expression and the right of users to information.

During a meeting of the Freedom of Speech Committee of the Parliament and Council of Europe on 18 April, Privacy Ukraine presented a report on Internet censorship in Ukraine. Though the Ukrainian parliament has organised several hearings on censorship, and earlier this month even adopted legislation clarifying the term 'censorship', the overall perspective is bleak.

Freedom of speech is one of the most vulnerable freedoms in Ukraine. The list of annual illegal actions against journalists in Ukraine (the so called 'Freedom of Speech Barometer') is long. Traditional media such as TV and broadcasting in most cases depend on the official pro-presidential propaganda.

In Germany, new content restrictions were introduced for the protection of minors, extending current regulations and indexing schemes for film and video to internet and games. Since 1 April all kinds of ego shooters and electronic media "glorifying war" are banned. Furthermore, under the new regulation, all computer games must carry labels with minimum age requirements. The restrictions on computer games were speeded up after a youngster killed 18 people in his school in the city of Erfurt a year ago. The youngster was addicted to the game 'Doom', media reported.

Through the new additions on the Treaty on Human Rights & the Protection of Minors in Broadcasting and Telecommunication Media a new central commission decides on illegal and harmful media and Web content.

'Turkey, showing the symptoms of a developing country, has not yet established the jurisprudence necessary for the Internet. The existing Turkish laws, especially the Press Law, are naively applied to alleged lawbreakers on the Internet, resulting in ludicrous outcomes.'

Paper about internet censorship in Turkey by Kemal Altintas, Tolga Aydin and Varol Akman published 10 May 2002 in First Monday, peer-reviewed journal
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_6/altinta/

The Justice ministers of the EU countries (by means of the Council of the European Union) have agreed on a decision to harmonize the criminal code in EU countries regarding attacks on information systems.

The ministers agree that "there is evidence of attacks against information systems, in particular as a result of the threat from organised crime, and increasing concern at the potential of terrorist attacks against information systems which form part of the critical infrastructure of the Member States." The proposal forces EU members states to make 'illegal access to information systems' and 'illegal system interference' a crime.

The proposal is widely criticized for being unbalanced. Especially regarding illegal system interference (denial of service attacks) it does not distinguish between a terrorist that intends to inflict harm or a non-violent protester that causes a system overload through email protests or virtual sit-ins. The proposal does not refer to freedom of expression or other fundamental rights and can have serious consequences for political protest and campaigning on the internet.