Loi sur la liberté de
French Liberty of Communication Act
Déclaration des acteurs d'Internet
Declaration of Internet actors
|Signez la déclaration / Sign up the declaration|
|COLLECTIFS / GROUPS||INDIVIDUELS / INDIVIDUALS|
électronique / By Email at :
Par fax au / By fax at :
01 44 74 92 39
|Formulaire / Form|
S'il y a eu effectivement consultation, les collectifs soussignés constatent qu'il n'a été tenu aucun compte des nombreuses propositions qui ont été présentées, tant aux parlementaires qu'aux représentants du gouvernement.
Parler de concertation dans ces conditions est donc tout à fait inapproprié.
La version de l'amendement Bloche votée en troisième lecture à l'Assemblée nationale (*) n'est pas acceptable en l'état.
Les soussignés déclarent que cet amendement doit être reconsidéré dans son intégralité, et que le parlement et le gouvernement doivent tenir compte des avis des acteurs d'Internet.
* et maintenue fondamentalement dans la version définitive (précision du 29 juin 2000).
Pour plus d'information, voir le dossier d'Iris sur la loi, dispositions concernant Internet : http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/loi-comm, ainsi que les commentaires généraux d'IRIS depuis le début du processus, en mai 1999 : http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/loi-comm/general.html : les enjeux et motivations de cette déclaration y sont plus précisément exposés.
The Ministry of Culture and Communication said at the National Assembly: "We have succeeded in overcoming the misunderstandings, thanks to the work of Mr Bloche and the collective efforts of various Internet user groups and concerned Internet professionals".
Although consultations have been made, the undersigned organizations take note that none of their numerous proposals were taken into account, neither by the members of the Parliament nor by the government representatives.
It is therefore inappropriate to claim that an agreement has been reached.
The draft of the Bloche amendment which has been voted in a third reading by the National Assembly (*) is not acceptable as it is currently assessed.
The undersigned declare that this amendment should be entirely reconsidered, and that the Parliament and the Government should take into account the opinion of Internet actors.
* and essentially maintained in the final version (precision added on June 29th, 2000).
Those who can read French may refer to an exhaustive dossier on the French Liberty of Communication Act, parts relevant to Internet: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/loi-comm. This dossier keeps track of all the developments since the beginning of the process, on May, 1999.
Otherwise, here is a short summary:
The French Parliament is in the process of reviewing the Liberty of Communication Act, which generally addresses audiovisual broadcasting communications. However, special provisions regarding Internet service provider (ISP) liability have been introduced after a highly publicized lawsuit against a French ISP, on February 1999. The bill is currently reaching its final steps of examination. The whole scheduling has been the following (NB. in France, the Senate is the lower Chamber):
- May 18-27, 1999 : first reading by the National Assembly
- January 18-26, 2000 : first reading by the Senate
- March 21-23, 2000 : second reading by the National Assembly
- May 29-31 and June 5, 2000 : second reading by the Senate
- June 15-16, 2000 : third reading by the National Assembly
- June 27, 2000 : third reading by the Senate
- June 28, 2000 : fourth and final reading by the National Assembly
Next possibility of reconsidering the provisions regarding Internet will be during Fall 2000, or early 2001, when the new 'Information Society Act' will be discussed.
In its current form, the Liberty of Communication Act would
Regarding ISP liability (Art. 43-6-2): ISPs may be made liable if they haven't deleted a content they host, when they have been told to do so by a judge or, if they haven't proceeded to the "appropriate diligences" when they have been informed by any third party that they are hosting an allegedly illegal content, or a content that may cause a prejudice to this third party.
Regarding log data (Art. 43-6-3): access and host providers are required to keep track of any data allowing to identify a content provider, in case of a law suite filed against him. ISPs are now subject to the 'professional secret', which means that they cannot provide these data to anyone, except the judge. Violation of the professional secret is punished by high criminal penalty.
Regarding identification of content providers (Art. 43-6-4): any content provider is required to identify himself to the public by putting his details on his web site. If content providing is not a professional activity, then the content provider is allowed to restrict his identification to his host provider, and not to the public. Note that during its June 15-16 reading of the Liberty of Communication Act, the National Assembly has suppressed any penalty for violators of this requirement, and the obligation for ISP to check the personal details given to them has been suppressed as well.
Many groups have participated to this process, with discussions and hearings by French members of the Parliament and by government representatives. They have expressed their concerns on democracy and freedom of expression. Among them, IRIS, a GILC member, has made a lot of alternative proposals, allowing to balance democracy and freedom of expression in the one hand, and the necessity to find and punish law violators in the other hand. Except the 'professional secret', which has been first proposed by IRIS on March 5, 1999 in a national newspaper article (Libération, http://www.liberation.com/quotidien/debats/mars99/990305d.html), none of the proposals and opinions expressed by Internet users and cyberliberties groups were taken into account.