Efforts over the past decade have been
underway to create a set of common policies and
practices at the EU-level on Internet regulation.
This is viewed as necessary to promote regional
competitiveness and commerce, to counter
Internet crime and terrorism, and to serve as a
platform to share best practices amongst
nations. Notable advancements in regulation at
the EU level—although not directly in the area of
filtering—include the definition of ISP liability
toward illegal content and obligations toward
data retention.
Regional regulation
A recurring theme throughout this overview will
be the overlapping nature of individual countrylevel law and regionwide regulation. Countering
criminal activity on the Internet and promoting the
overall competitiveness of the Internet industry
have been the primary reasons cited to develop
a regional regulatory framework. 1 A regional
approach in Europe has its beginnings with a
request by the European Council to the
European Commission in April 1996 to produce
“a summary of problems posed by the rapid
development of the Internet” and to assess the
need for regulation. The Commission produced a
report titled “Illegal and Harmful Content on the
Internet” and a Green Paper on “The Protection
of Minors and Human Dignity in Audiovisual
Services” in response. Based on these documents, “a common framework for self-regulation
(of the Internet) at the European level” was drafted, which culminated in an Action Plan on
Promoting Safe Use of the Internet. The plan,
adopted on January 25, 1999 and operational up
to 2002, outlines the basic principles underlying
Internet content regulation at the European level. 2
Broadly, undesirable content on the Internet is
classified either as “illegal” or “harmful.”
The scope of “illegal” content tends to vary
between countries, although there are certain
issues where there is a greater amount of consensus, such as child pornography, trafficking in
human beings, racist material, material promoting terrorism, and all forms of Internet fraud (such
as credit card fraud). 3, 4 “Harmful” material, as
defined in the plan, is that which might offend the
values and sentiments of others and could pertain to politics, religion, or racial matters, and
could also vary significantly between cultures.
The plan emphasizes the need for action in
five broad areas in order to curb illegal and harmful content on the Internet: 5
1. promoting voluntary industry self-regulation
and content monitoring schemes, including
the use of hotlines for the public to report
illegal or harmful content;
2. providing filtering tools and rating systems
that enable parents or teachers to regulate
the access of Internet content by children in
their care, while allowing adults access to
legal content;
3. raising awareness about services offered by
industry among users to allow them to leverage the Internet more fully;
4. exploring the legal implications of promoting
the safer use of the Internet; and
5. encouraging international cooperation in the
area of regulation.
Europe also maintains a regional policy that
is generous in limiting ISP liability under the
Electronic Commerce Directive, 2000/31/EC.
Article 12, the “mere conduit” exception provision, absolves ISPs from liability for information
transmitted over their networks as long as they
did not initiate the message, select or modify the
information, or select the intended recipients. The
exemption also extends to the “automatic, intermediate and transient” storage of information,
provided it is for a “reasonable period.” The latter
is left to be specified by member states. Article
13 deals with caching—granting exemption from
liability for the “automatic, intermediate and temRegional Overviews
187
underway to create a set of common policies and
practices at the EU-level on Internet regulation.
This is viewed as necessary to promote regional
competitiveness and commerce, to counter
Internet crime and terrorism, and to serve as a
platform to share best practices amongst
nations. Notable advancements in regulation at
the EU level—although not directly in the area of
filtering—include the definition of ISP liability
toward illegal content and obligations toward
data retention.
Regional regulation
A recurring theme throughout this overview will
be the overlapping nature of individual countrylevel law and regionwide regulation. Countering
criminal activity on the Internet and promoting the
overall competitiveness of the Internet industry
have been the primary reasons cited to develop
a regional regulatory framework. 1 A regional
approach in Europe has its beginnings with a
request by the European Council to the
European Commission in April 1996 to produce
“a summary of problems posed by the rapid
development of the Internet” and to assess the
need for regulation. The Commission produced a
report titled “Illegal and Harmful Content on the
Internet” and a Green Paper on “The Protection
of Minors and Human Dignity in Audiovisual
Services” in response. Based on these documents, “a common framework for self-regulation
(of the Internet) at the European level” was drafted, which culminated in an Action Plan on
Promoting Safe Use of the Internet. The plan,
adopted on January 25, 1999 and operational up
to 2002, outlines the basic principles underlying
Internet content regulation at the European level. 2
Broadly, undesirable content on the Internet is
classified either as “illegal” or “harmful.”
The scope of “illegal” content tends to vary
between countries, although there are certain
issues where there is a greater amount of consensus, such as child pornography, trafficking in
human beings, racist material, material promoting terrorism, and all forms of Internet fraud (such
as credit card fraud). 3, 4 “Harmful” material, as
defined in the plan, is that which might offend the
values and sentiments of others and could pertain to politics, religion, or racial matters, and
could also vary significantly between cultures.
The plan emphasizes the need for action in
five broad areas in order to curb illegal and harmful content on the Internet: 5
1. promoting voluntary industry self-regulation
and content monitoring schemes, including
the use of hotlines for the public to report
illegal or harmful content;
2. providing filtering tools and rating systems
that enable parents or teachers to regulate
the access of Internet content by children in
their care, while allowing adults access to
legal content;
3. raising awareness about services offered by
industry among users to allow them to leverage the Internet more fully;
4. exploring the legal implications of promoting
the safer use of the Internet; and
5. encouraging international cooperation in the
area of regulation.
Europe also maintains a regional policy that
is generous in limiting ISP liability under the
Electronic Commerce Directive, 2000/31/EC.
Article 12, the “mere conduit” exception provision, absolves ISPs from liability for information
transmitted over their networks as long as they
did not initiate the message, select or modify the
information, or select the intended recipients. The
exemption also extends to the “automatic, intermediate and transient” storage of information,
provided it is for a “reasonable period.” The latter
is left to be specified by member states. Article
13 deals with caching—granting exemption from
liability for the “automatic, intermediate and temRegional Overviews
187