Time for a mea culpa. I have done nothing about the proposed control of blogs and bloggers by the EU and the European Parliament's rather pathetic statement on the subject. I shall read it and write a proper analysis.
In the meantime, here are a few links. My colleague on EUReferendum wrote about it on Tuesday, though he concentrated a little on the fate of the ex-blog England Expects. We have covered the subject before here.
The EUObserver gives a curiously up-beat report - all is well with the European Parliament and the blogosphere as nobody was ever going to try to control it and, in any case, the suggestion has been defeated.
The best report, so far, is by Charles Crawford. He actually fisks the Toy Parliament's statements and finds many horrifying aspects to it. Way to go. I completely agree with his ridicule of the concept of media pluralism. What on earth does that mean? Clearly it is not the same as freedom of the media as that would imply that the Toy Parliament and the other EU institutions had nothing to do with it. Media pluralism, on the other hand, suggests a structure that is actually defined by the powers that be. Rather like a charter of rights that is graciously awarded to people by the state.
More on the substance of the story as I have time to fisk the relevant documents myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If the history of the EU is any guide, this will not go away as that is not the way that the EU works. It has an inbuilt hatred of criticism, and thus, I predict that this bill will reappear, in some guise or another.
Also, note that the vote was 307 to 262, hardly a resounding defeat, which will give the proponents heart that they can re-introduce this at a quieter time, normally during the summer break when MEPs are enjoying their paid for trips to other MEPs' summer homes. So 46% of MEPs were willing to restrict your freedom to blog. How many of the 307 only voted against because this proposal had gained considerable publicity and they didn't want their names associated with restricting freedoms whilst the public were watching.
this bill will reappear, in some guise or another.
That goes without saying.
Post a Comment