The public in nineteen European countries
assists in identifying and reporting illegal content
—particularly in the area of child pornography —
through a network of hotlines that have been
implemented on the basis of a recommendation
at the EU level. 21 In Austria authorities were able
to uncover a “child-pornography ring” involving
seventy-seven countries in February 2007, based
on a report by a man working for a Vienna-based
Internet file-hosting service. 22 Recent reports
show that the Save the Children Denmark
Hotline, financed jointly by Denmark and the
European Commission’s Safer Internet Plus
Programme, had nearly 9,000 reports of child
abuse images in 2006 alone. 23 The police in
Spain were able to arrest ninety people in 2004 in
the country’s largest operation against the distribution of child pornography, facilitated by the
hotlines. The INHOPE Association acts as the
coordinator of the network of hotlines, including
in countries outside Europe such as Australia,
Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, and the
United States. 24
Although early filtering efforts had fairly limited agendas, proposals and laws are emerging in
many nations toward filtering in other social
realms, such as gambling and betting. A proposal was drafted in 2002 to revise Swiss federal
laws on lotteries and betting, such that those providing access to games that are considered illegal face fines up to 1 million Swiss francs or up to
a year of imprisonment. This effort was suspended in 2004, and no further action has been taken
since. As of February 2006 ISPs in Italy are
required to block access to Web sites that offer
online gambling. The list of Web sites to be
blocked is compiled by the Autonomous
Administration of State Monopolies (AAMS, a
part of the Ministry of Economy and Finances),
which issued the decree. 25 The most broadbased proposal yet for filtering comes from
Norway, where the government is considering
blocking access to foreign gambling sites, Web
sites that “desecrate the Flag or Coat of Arms of
a foreign nation,” sites that promote hatred
toward public authorities, contain hate speech or
promote racism, offensive pornography sites,
and peer-to-peer sites that offer illegal downloads of music, movies, or television shows. 26
Nationalistic filtering
There are no examples in Europe of filtering carried out to silence political opposition such as
those that the ONI has documented in other
regions. There are, however, examples of filtering
that seeks to maintain the legitimacy of government institutions and preserve national identity. In
December 2002 a local Swiss magistrate,
Françoise Dessaux, ordered several Swiss ISPs
to block access to three Web sites hosted in the
United States that were strongly critical of Swiss
courts, 27 and to modify their DNS servers to
block the domain appel-au-people.org.
28
The
Swiss Internet User Group and the Swiss
Network Operators Group protested that the
blocks could easily be bypassed and that the
move was contrary to the Swiss constitution,
which guarantees “the right to receive information freely, to gather it from generally accessible
sources and to disseminate it” to every person.
However, there was strong enforcement, as the
directors of noncompliant ISPs were asked to
appear personally in court, failing which they
faced charges of disobedience.
On March 7, 2007, the video-sharing Web
site YouTube was blocked in Turkey as per a court
order, following the posting of certain videos on
the site that were found to be derogatory toward
Turkey’s founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,
the Turkish people in general, and the Turkish
flag. The blocking invoked Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code, known as the main obstacle
to freedom of speech, which defines insults
toward Ataturk as well as “Turkishness” as a
crime. Turkey’s leading ISP, Turk Telecom, complied with the order but petitioned to the court to
allow access to the site to be restored. The court
agreed on the condition that the particular videos
Regional Overviews
189
assists in identifying and reporting illegal content
—particularly in the area of child pornography —
through a network of hotlines that have been
implemented on the basis of a recommendation
at the EU level. 21 In Austria authorities were able
to uncover a “child-pornography ring” involving
seventy-seven countries in February 2007, based
on a report by a man working for a Vienna-based
Internet file-hosting service. 22 Recent reports
show that the Save the Children Denmark
Hotline, financed jointly by Denmark and the
European Commission’s Safer Internet Plus
Programme, had nearly 9,000 reports of child
abuse images in 2006 alone. 23 The police in
Spain were able to arrest ninety people in 2004 in
the country’s largest operation against the distribution of child pornography, facilitated by the
hotlines. The INHOPE Association acts as the
coordinator of the network of hotlines, including
in countries outside Europe such as Australia,
Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, and the
United States. 24
Although early filtering efforts had fairly limited agendas, proposals and laws are emerging in
many nations toward filtering in other social
realms, such as gambling and betting. A proposal was drafted in 2002 to revise Swiss federal
laws on lotteries and betting, such that those providing access to games that are considered illegal face fines up to 1 million Swiss francs or up to
a year of imprisonment. This effort was suspended in 2004, and no further action has been taken
since. As of February 2006 ISPs in Italy are
required to block access to Web sites that offer
online gambling. The list of Web sites to be
blocked is compiled by the Autonomous
Administration of State Monopolies (AAMS, a
part of the Ministry of Economy and Finances),
which issued the decree. 25 The most broadbased proposal yet for filtering comes from
Norway, where the government is considering
blocking access to foreign gambling sites, Web
sites that “desecrate the Flag or Coat of Arms of
a foreign nation,” sites that promote hatred
toward public authorities, contain hate speech or
promote racism, offensive pornography sites,
and peer-to-peer sites that offer illegal downloads of music, movies, or television shows. 26
Nationalistic filtering
There are no examples in Europe of filtering carried out to silence political opposition such as
those that the ONI has documented in other
regions. There are, however, examples of filtering
that seeks to maintain the legitimacy of government institutions and preserve national identity. In
December 2002 a local Swiss magistrate,
Françoise Dessaux, ordered several Swiss ISPs
to block access to three Web sites hosted in the
United States that were strongly critical of Swiss
courts, 27 and to modify their DNS servers to
block the domain appel-au-people.org.
28
The
Swiss Internet User Group and the Swiss
Network Operators Group protested that the
blocks could easily be bypassed and that the
move was contrary to the Swiss constitution,
which guarantees “the right to receive information freely, to gather it from generally accessible
sources and to disseminate it” to every person.
However, there was strong enforcement, as the
directors of noncompliant ISPs were asked to
appear personally in court, failing which they
faced charges of disobedience.
On March 7, 2007, the video-sharing Web
site YouTube was blocked in Turkey as per a court
order, following the posting of certain videos on
the site that were found to be derogatory toward
Turkey’s founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,
the Turkish people in general, and the Turkish
flag. The blocking invoked Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code, known as the main obstacle
to freedom of speech, which defines insults
toward Ataturk as well as “Turkishness” as a
crime. Turkey’s leading ISP, Turk Telecom, complied with the order but petitioned to the court to
allow access to the site to be restored. The court
agreed on the condition that the particular videos
Regional Overviews
189