EU ‘must act as role model’ in promoting free speech
Europe must take the lead in promoting free speech as the USA is no longer carrying out the role, Julian Assange, director of whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, told a European Parliament hearing in Brussels this week.
Urging caution in adopting anti-terror legislation that curbs freedom of speech, Assange warned that "what happens in Europe is used to justify even more extreme forms of censorship elsewhere in the world".
"The USA is no longer the great protector of freedom of speech, so Europe must pick up the mantle," said the Australian editor of WikiLeaks, a website designed to protect the anonymity of whistle-blowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive information to communicate to the public.
"No-one else is going to do it, and someone must act as a role model for China," Assange added.
He was speaking at a debate on the challenges facing freedom of expression in Europe at the European Parliament on Monday (21 June).
"There is a drive for a Europe-wide Internet censorship system. Political parties are mobilising and this is a very serious issue," Assange said.
"The pressure for harmonisation is immense, but which way are we going to go? Towards China? Germany has a mandatory state censorship law," the WikiLeaks chief added.
"We have exposed the state censorship blacklists of many countries, which are ostensibly meant to reduce the risk of child pornography, but are in fact used for all sorts of things, like preventing criticism of the king in Thailand," he explained.
His fears were echoed by Birgitta Jónsdóttir, the Icelandic MP behind a landmark law protecting journalists’ sources which was adopted in parliament last week and has attracted media attention all over the world as it will make the country a safe haven for investigative journalists (see ‘Background’).
Normally China is the focus of attention when it comes to threats to freedom of expression, said Jónsdóttir, "but the situation in Europe is much worse than you think as a result of anti-terror legislation".
The Icelander urged EU lawmakers to "draw from the best of laws worldwide and legislate accordingly". "The media has no borders any more, so we need to move beyond the US-Europe-UK debate" and think about rule-making on a global scale, she added.
Limits to EU competence
The EU’s 27 member states have divergent laws protecting the freedom of speech and the anonymity of sources, which makes action at European level difficult.
"There are issues regarding which national law should apply to which case, so without harmonisation there are limits to what can be achieved institutionally at EU level," German liberal MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE).
"At the moment it depends on what happens in national courts. We need to find the best way of dealing with this in the EU institutions," Lambsdorff said.
Others pointed out that self-expression is not the only freedom that comes into play when debating censorship.
"We must recognise that reputation and privacy are also of key importance. Freedom of expression is not the only freedom at stake here," said Professor Alastair Mullins, dean of the Norwich Law School at the University of East Anglia.
In February, a Milan court convicted three Google executives for the 2006 transmission of a video showing the bullying of a youth with Down’s Syndrome (EurActiv 26/02/10).
The case offered a stark warning of the effect that allowing content to be freely posted online can have on individual lives. The three executives were sentenced to six months in jail after being convicted of invasion of privacy.
The case stemmed from an incident in 2006 when students at an Italian school filmed and then uploaded a clip to Google Video showing them bullying a schoolmate with Down’s Syndrome (EurActiv 17/12/09).
Mullins argued that "the media should not be free to publish naked untruths and falseness, with total disregard for the consequences, without fear of discrimination," questioning whether "US-style free speech fundamentalism" is the right approach for Europe.
He also warned against treating the Internet as a lawless zone. "Many of the restrictions limiting the liability of Internet service providers and search engines are justified, but they should not be given a free ride and the Internet should not be a law-free zone".
Positions
"As liberals we clearly defend the right to offend. Freedom of expression includes the right to offend and be deliberately provocative. But you must also defend the choice to consciously not offend. Freedom of expression is about defending both. We are not advocating timidity," said German liberal MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe).
"Media concentration puts so much power in so few hands. We can see it at national level in Italy and local level in Germany," Lambsdorff added.
Birgitta Jónsdóttir, the Icelandic MP behind a landmark law protecting journalists’ sources, said the Icelandic initiative "pulls together the best legislation from around the world to promote transparency".
"I never expected that we’d attract such international interest, which reminds me how many laws there are out there that limit our freedom of expression and access to information," she said.
"We’re not suggesting making anything that is illegal legal, for example, we already have clear laws against child pornography," Jónsdóttir added.
"Now we have the law in Iceland, maybe we can bring [protection of sources] into Europe that way," said WikiLeaks director Julian Assange.
"The right and ability to communicate knowledge is above most other rights. We must take care when regulating freedom of speech, because that speech is what all other rights are founded upon," he added.
But Dutch liberal MEP Marietje Schaake warned against relying on the courts to protect freedom of speech. "What is an offence to one person can be a compliment to another. Law should be a last resort and should only be applied to objectively measurable points."
"There are museums that choose not to address Islam issues for fear of being targeted by extremists. That’s not freedom of expression," said Norwegian artist Lars Vilks.
"Freedom of speech can also be considered in terms of quality," said Vilks, suggesting that it is only worth defending something that is worth saying. "It’s better to have an open debate than trying to avoid a debate because you don’t want to answer certain questions," he added.
"Sensitive issues should be dealt with without provocation but in a civilised manner," said Naema Tahir, a British-Dutch writer and human rights lawyer of Pakistani origin.
"I would defend the freedom of speech of anyone who criticises Islam, but it is better to use more civilised speech that provocation if you want to encourage closed communities to open up," Tahir added.
Background
Stakeholders debated the freedom of expression and press freedom at an event in the European Parliament this week (21 June) hosted by MEPs from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) group.
On 15 June, Iceland adopted the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a comprehensive package of laws to protect journalists’ sources and create a supportive and attractive jurisdiction for the publication of investigative journalism and other threatened online media.
The country has also created a new international award called the Icelandic Prize for Freedom of Expression.
