French President Pushing 'Fake News' Bill That Would Demand Decisions From Judges In 48 Hours
from the 48-hours-or-your-violated-rights-are-free dept
France's government will likely be following Germany's into the halls of speech regulation infamy. Germany's new "hate speech" law backed 24-hour removal demands with hefty fines to ensure social media platform compliance. This has prompted proactive enforcement by Twitter and Facebook, resulting the removal of content that doesn't violate the law, along with the removal of satire's life support.
The French government is already eyeballing a carbon copy of this hate speech law. But it's willing to do Germany one better: it wants to regulate "fake news." This push comes from new president Emmanuel Macron, who's decided to make his personal beef with fake news a public concern. A false story about offshore accounts owned by Macron made its way around the internet during his presidential campaign, prompting him to declare war on "fake news" if he was elected.
He's been elected, and now appears to be abandoning the base that thought he would be less radical and more reasonable than many of his opponents.
Taking aim at so-called fake news, France’s Parliament on Thursday is set to begin debating a tough bill aimed at repressing phony news items, one pushed by President Emmanuel Macron amid criticism that it poses a potential threat to press freedom.
The measure would allow judges to block content deemed false during a three-month period preceding an election.
During elections, it appears normal speech protections will be disabled. And it will be France's court system doing the heavy lifting under duress. The law would force judges to make a call on suspected "fake news" within 48 hours of the government submitting its case. Forty-eight hours is a ridiculous turn time for judicial matters, which makes it extremely likely literal judgment calls will be blown and/or overblocking will occur.
This also allows the French government to make the initial declaration of a news item's veracity. Forty-eight hours is barely enough time to read the government's case and pass a judgment, much less provide any due process to those accused of faking their news. Anyone who can't find something wrong with the general idea of a government declaring certain speech bogus and placing it before a judge with ticking time is either a budding authoritarian or Emmanuel Macron.
Unfortunately for Macron, the not-so-very-enlightened president is going to have a hard time shoving this terrible idea down parliament's throat. He's getting shot from both sides during his push to harm free speech protections and journalists.
[I]n heated exchanges in parliament on Thursday, members of the rightwing Les Républicains party accused Macron of trying to create a “thought police” that threatened freedom of expression. The leftwing France Insoumise party warned of a new kind of censorship and cautioned against a hasty, unnecessary and ineffective law against an ill-defined concept of fake news.
France's culture secretary said these fears were overblown as was any perceived attack on journalists. But the law Macron is pushing would do exactly what the culture secretary denies it will do. Supposedly "professional media" won't be targeted. But how can that statement possibly be true?
Social networks would also have to clearly state who was sponsoring content. The law would also give the French media regulator new powers to remove broadcasters’ rights to air content in France if it is deemed to be deliberately fake or implausible. Foreign broadcasters could be taken off air if they were deemed to be attempting to destabilise France, a measure taken to be aimed at Russian state-backed outlets.
Even if the culture secretary is to be believed, this just means the government will decide who is or isn't a journalist after the law is passed -- most likely on a case-by-case basis that allows it to target those perceived of being less able to challenge a judicial determination. Journalism isn't something only big name news agencies do. Plenty of amateurs engage in journalism and it will be those without privilege or access who can most easily be silenced by the government's "fake news" accusations.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, emmanuel macron, fake news, france, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Perhaps they need to stop making others responsible for their pipe dreams & learn how hard it is to do what they imagine is simple.
This isn't something you can just pass a law & declare fixed.
It isn't fair to demand that a platform follow some magical nebulous rules that boil down to 'you'll know it when you see it' & when you screw up you owe us fscktons of cash for not doing the impossible. Notice how all of the punishment is on the platform and not the posters, perhaps personal accountability needs to make a come-back world wide, rather than those with the most money are responsible.
The problem isn't the platforms, the problem is how people are using them. You wouldn't demand money from Renault if someone driving one of their cars is speeding, how is it that on the internet everything is the platforms fault & not the posters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The result of Macron's 48-hour censorship is obvious:
48 hours is not enough time to research and adjudicate the facts
and dismisses without leave to appeal because, obviously, 48 hours
will never be enough to distinguish unwanted facts from fake news.
Any attempt to prevent a judge from adjudicating lawfully will
always be slapped down loudly enough to be heard nationwide.
Judicial independence asserted, precedent set, law nullified. ;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
guillotine mentality still prevails in France
What ever happened to France's Marine Le Pen, who a few months after losing the presidential election to Macron, was criminally charged with making a forbidden tweet -- 3 years ago -- and facing 3 years in prison if convicted?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/marine-le-pen-charged-for-posting-violent-is is-images-on-twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: guillotine mentality still prevails in France
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I am guessing this will happen 3 months before election:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh who am I kidding? Probably 90% of the people will think outlawing "fake news" is a wonderful idea. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To hell with such laws
The guy married his grandma (at least someone old enough to be his grandma). Says all I need to know about "...Macwon...".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To hell with such laws -- YOU'D BE RIGHT AT HOME, ZOMBIE!
Routine glances for zombies, then... I. Nearly. Plotzed!
Another RECORD! -- EIGHT YEARS THREE MONTHS since the second of THREE COMMENTS! -- Back for two sentences!
NO WAY that's a real person. (Try again, "nasch"!) EIGHTH that has over SIX YEAR GAP.
While Masnick is going on about a suspicious coffee mug!
You fanboys ask why I'm here? NO OTHER SITE HAS SUCH HOOTS!
(I AM running out of astonishment, though. FITS my view of Techdirt as dis-information.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To hell with such laws -- YOU'D BE RIGHT AT HOME, ZOMBIE!
As for what's actually happening: most readers of the site lurk, not comment. That's it. So if they comment rarely, it's not a conspiracy. It's just how normal people use the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To hell with such laws -- YOU'D BE RIGHT AT HOME, ZOMBIE!
Why would it make sense to revive a dormant account, rather than just create a new one? What possible good could it do it revive an account?
Same reason why horse with no name/Whatever/MyNameHere/Just Sayin', at one point, claimed that Prenda Law was an invention of anti-copyright freetards, because obviously nobody would defend or enforce copyright in such an underhanded way and get caught doing it.
Because it's fucking dumb logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To hell with such laws -- YOU'D BE RIGHT AT HOME, ZOMBIE!
Only in your wildest delusions would a blog writer take time out from writing articles to post comments using somebody else's identity.
As for dormant accounts, I've tried several times to get mine revived and it hasn't happened. I suspect it's because my requests were buried beneath the torrent of emails the staff here receive every day. No biggie, I can post anonymously so I won't make a fuss about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To hell with such laws -- YOU'D BE RIGHT AT HOME, ZOMBIE!
There are companies for hire that specialize in scrubbing dirt and/or making promotions on Wikipedia, and they'd no doubt be willing to buy a slew of accounts if the price were right rather than having to build up their own sockpuppet accounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if it is deemed to be deliberately fake or implausible
If implausibility is the point upon which a fake news decision turns, then the more true something is the more likely it is to be declared fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There goes the French...
They used to be badasses back in the day, but alas... no more!
c'est la vie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEFINE FAKE NEWS...
HOW to prove something that has Proof or no proof.
EVEN with proof, can yo Prove it and show it, and have it 100%, proven in 24-48 hours??
Esp. in out of area locations.. Could a company in another State/country/Location HIDE anything they have?? YEP..
Want to Dig into a corporations computer system???
BEFORE OR AFTER they erase things??
Want to TRY to go thru a Offshore bank to find Data, thats encoded with JUST numbers, and no names?? THEN try to prove it belongs to 1 person??
Even with a TON of proof, it takes Courts YEARS, to decide right and wrong..
Truth has little meaning with Right/Wrong/courts..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]