Italy proposes gag law on bloggers, FB posts; Brussels silent (again)

[Al.]

Gotta love this one. If you post what the government calls "incorrect facts", you gotta retract in 48 hours or get hit with a €25,000 fine; if you're a member of the press that publishes conversations from a wire tap, you can get hit with €465K.

EUobserver

Italian gag law threatens bloggers with €25,000 fines for ‘incorrect' facts

Bloggers, podcasters and even anyone who posts updates on social networks such as Facebook all face being slapped with fines of up to €25,000 for publishing incorrect facts, if a bill that journalists' organisations are calling "authoritarian" currently before the Italian parliament is passed. …

European digital rights campaigners and Italian journalists warn that the move could darken much of Italian cyberspace as for small-scale bloggers, website owners and even those who comment on discussion pages, it would be a near impossibility to deal with a complaint within the alloted time span.

[PaddyJoe McGillycuddy]

So Ireland is reported as being in the forefront of restricting the right to free expression. Well done, Dermot Ahern.

There are problems with Ireland, Bulgaria and Romania as well. In January last year, Ireland passed an anti-blasphemy law under which you can be fined €20,000. When our organisation raised concerns about a journalist being jailed for blasphemy in the Yemen, they said right back to us: ‘But Ireland does the same thing,' and to some extent they're right."

[sondagefaux]

Can tell me what role 'Brussels' has in relation to this law? Does the EU have the power to stop this law or modify it in any way? Believe it or not, the EU deals with EU law, not national laws implemented by its members of their own accord.

If this law is overly restrictive of freedom of expression, those affected can take a case before the European Court of Human Rights.

'Brussels' does not control everything that goes on in Europe, contrary to the OP's fantasies.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Dispels the myth of a " more democratic" EU promised by the pro-Lisbon elites last year.

[Al.]

So Ireland is reported as being in the forefront of restricting the right to free expression. Well done, Dermot Ahern

Ah sure, he's only following the lead of his European masters. How can he be held accountable for that, eh?

Does the EU have the power to stop this law or modify it in any way? Believe it or not, the EU deals with EU law, not national laws implemented by its members of their own accord

I don't believe that because it's a lie. The Commission even admitted it, where they would take action if the Italian law in question contravenes EU law. If it does not, then you ought to seriously question EU law. Forgot about Costa versus ENEL? EU law has supremacy over member state laws.

'Brussels' does not control everything that goes on in Europe

You're right. Berlin does. As for your other noise, better be sure of your facts next time instead of blurting out unsubstantiated propaganda.

[sondagefaux]

I don't believe that because it's a lie. The Commission even admitted it, where they would take action if the Italian law in question contravenes EU law.

If it contravenes EU law. If EU law is not relevant, if there is no EU law in the area, if the EU doesn't have the power to make law in the area, then how can it contravene EU law?

If it does not, then you ought to seriously question EU law. Forgot about Costa versus ENEL? EU law has supremacy over member state laws.

No it doesn't. It has supremacy over member state laws in areas where the EU has power to make laws.

If the EU doesn't have the power to make laws in a certain area, EU law is not supreme.

The EU has no powers to make law to regulate the age of consent.

A country that brings in an age of consent of 10 cannot have action taken against it by the EU because the EU doesn't make law in that area.

That country may be subject to action in the European Court of Human Rights but that court is not an institution of the EU.

You're right. Berlin does.

More paranoid delusion.

As for your other noise, better be sure of your facts next time instead of blurting out unsubstantiated propaganda.

You'd do well to take your own advice.

[pujols]

It never ceases to amaze me the way folks lash out at Brussels for not doing something that is none of their concern and in the next breath, lash out at Brussels for controlling their lives in every respect.

The EU has made huge efforts to respect the principle of subsidiarity and I would be appalled if they were to get stuck into matters that don't concern the treaties of Rome.

This is a matter of national competence and the best bet is for the first victims of a prosecution to hotfoot it to Strasbourg and have the law found to be in contravention of the ECHR which it almost certainly will be.

By then you may have another government in Italy...

[sondagefaux]

Some people think that the EU can make law in any area. That's rubbish. The EU can only make law in areas where it has the competence (legal jargon for power) to do so.

All other areas remain the responsibility of the member states:

Article 4
1. In accordance with Article 5, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.

[TheTinker]

I hope the Italian people vote on it. Or we should all watch who is voting on it.
If the Italians people vote for it that will be too bad.
But then, how would they deal with someone in Turkey or Ireland posting
'incorrect facts' on the those same sites/blogs? They would have to filter
the net like China.
Watch bloody out.

[Al.]

If it contravenes EU law. If EU law is not relevant, if there is no EU law in the area, if the EU doesn't have the power to make law in the area, then how can it contravene EU law?

So you're saying that authoritarian laws don't contravene EU law? Really? What's the purpose of the EU then, a "supranational" body that allows the rest of the EU to turn towards authoritarianism and away from freedom?

No it doesn't. It has supremacy over member state laws in areas where the EU has power to make laws. If the EU doesn't have the power to make laws in a certain area, EU law is not supreme

Nice bit of sophistry. But where does the EU not have power to make laws? Nothing's spelled out in the Treaty of Lisbon in that respect. In fact, that Treaty gives Brussels unlimited power to make laws in all areas.

You seem to think this is true, sans a scrap of proof:

The EU has no powers to make law to regulate the age of consent.

A country that brings in an age of consent of 10 cannot have action taken against it by the EU because the EU doesn't make law in that area.

That country may be subject to action in the European Court of Human Rights but that court is not an institution of the EU

And this is based on what? A pile of assumptions on your part? because it's certainly not enshrined in EU law.

Your argument is another assertion of falsehoods. If the EU wished to regulate the age of consent, it could certainly do so. There is nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon prohibiting Brussels from bringing in a supranational age of consent regulation. Article 4 section 1 (article 5 section 2) does not prohibit it, and Article 5 section 3 invests them with unlimited legislative power; there's nothing specifying that the member states never conferred that power on the Union.

As for the European Court of Human Rights, that has power over those signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e. whomever has membership in the Council of Europe; furthermore, the Charter of Fundamental Rights (derived from the herein-mentioned Convention) is part of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Council of Europe and the EU are intertwined.

Some people think that the EU can make law in any area. That's rubbish. The EU can only make law in areas where it has the competence (legal jargon for power) to do so.

All other areas remain the responsibility of the member states

Misreading Article 4 section 1 again? That clause has to be within the principle of subsidiarity, and since the EU is supreme, all of the member states (save Germany, via its Consitutional Court decision, where they approve all EU legislation; this is not "paranoid delusion" but utter reality) are the subsidiaries (subordinates) of the Union and are therefore ruled from the top down. The EU has all power, via that principle; there isn't a single "competence" spelled out in the treaty that any of the member states have withheld. Name one single regulation or directive that can be rejected by the member states.

And don't forget Article 5 section 3:

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

Therefore, the EU can grab any power it sees fit; not that they have to, since this section gives them that power already, to decide for themselves what can be "better achieved at Union level" and act on it willy-nilly. Furthermore, there are no member state powers defined as the member states' "exclusive competences"; Article 4 section 1 and Article 5 section 2 are utterly meaningless thanks to the above section quoted, which nullifies them. Better work a bit harder to cut through the legalese and sophistry.