(RSF/IFEX) – On 9 April 2004, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Bill to Promote Confidence in the Digital Economy (projet de loi sur la confiance dans l’économie numérique, LEN) that would allow website publishers to be charged with defamation for articles written several years earlier. RSF has denounced the amendment and called for […]
(RSF/IFEX) – On 9 April 2004, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Bill to Promote Confidence in the Digital Economy (projet de loi sur la confiance dans l’économie numérique, LEN) that would allow website publishers to be charged with defamation for articles written several years earlier.
RSF has denounced the amendment and called for its removal when the proposed law is examined by a joint parliamentary commission. “This text was debated for the first time during the second reading of the Senate. Despite the introduction of major changes, it was hastily adopted by less than 20 senators. The absence of a statute of limitations for online publications calls into question the fundamental protection of free expression as guaranteed by the Press Law of 1881. This type of amendment only adds to the numerous dangers already present in the bill, which has become something of a legal fiasco,” said the organisation.
The amendment purports to prevent individuals from publishing defamatory texts which may only be consulted online after a three month delay. RSF notes, however, that defamation cases are usually tied to current events and are rarely the result of such premeditated approaches. By attempting to guard against such an improbable risk, the Senate has paved the way for a much greater threat to free expression. According to Lionel Thoumyre of the Forum on Internet Rights (Le forum des droits sur l’Internet), “This issue could just as easily have been resolved by the courts.” In fact, a judge might consider the publication date of an article to be the date it becomes available to the public rather than the date it is posted online. Nevertheless, to the extent that this amendment challenges the legal framework established by the law of 1881, RSF believes that it deserves serious debate and should not have been adopted as simply another addition to an already controversial text.
