Conclusion
Filtering of online content takes a variety of forms
among the states of Europe. Examples include
orders issued by states to ISPs to take down Web
sites that contain illegal content if they are hosted
within the country, blocking orders by enforcement authorities for illegal content hosted
abroad, and search engines that filter results pertaining to illegal content as a form of self-regulation. Although forms of filtering by search
engines and ISPs are often referred to as “voluntary self-regulation” in some countries, there
appears to be an implicit understanding that
cooperation with government orders will forestall
further legislation.
Filtering in European countries has also
given rise to several legal disputes over the question of jurisdiction involving content that is hosted
abroad. While the degree of filtering that takes
place tends to vary among states, there is a concern in many countries over an apparent increase
in the overall extent of filtering, as manifested in
recent proposals and revisions in laws. Filtering
in European states has, however, largely been
confined to content that is illegal, and the extent
has been tempered by public dialogue, adherence to law, and commitment to free speech,
although the latter is more constrained than it is
in the United States.
At the EU level there have been efforts over
the past decade to create a common platform of
“harmonized” Internet regulation. With regard to
the filtering of online content, the emphasis has
been on greater cooperation among industry, the
public, and enforcement authorities within states,
and increased voluntary industry selfregulation. Although EU level discussions were
initially focused on various forms of illegal content online (in particular child pornography and
racist and xenophobic content), there is
increased attention being paid toward the use of
the Internet for terrorism and organized crime in
recent years. The latter has spurred legislation in
the area of data retention, and much debate on
the need for greater security measures versus
the associated implications for privacy. There
have also been recent advancements in terms of
regulation at the EU level in the areas of defamation law, copyright, and defining ISP liability for
online content. Creating a common platform for
legislation at the regional level is a slow and complex process given the significant differences in
the cultures and existing legislations in the countries of the European Union.
Author: Sangamitra Ramachander
NOTES
1. See http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/internet/
communic.html#f10 (accessed May 11, 2007).
2. This has been followed by the Safer Internet Action
Plan (2002–2005) and the Safer Internet Plus
Programme (2005–2008).
3. See http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/internet/
communic.html#f10 (accessed May 11, 2007).
4. Even in the case of child pornography, variations
between countries exist pertaining to the definition of
child pornography, the range of criminal activities
that are subject to legislation (the possession, production, and dissemination of material, and so on),
the means of investigation, and the penalties. For an
overview of the national-level legislation and initiatives to counter child pornography in various countries, see http://www.inhope.org/en/about/about.html
(accessed May 11, 2007).
5. See http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/fr/internet/
actplan.html (accessed May 11, 2007).
6. http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/pdfs/isp_liability.pdf
(accessed May 11, 2007).
7. However, member states might impose additional
obligations for ISPs to immediately convey information to relevant authorities “of alleged illegal activities
undertaken, or information provided by recipients of
their service.” ISPs might also have to provide, on
request, information that enables the “identification
of recipients of their service with whom they have
storage agreements.” See http://www.jisclegal.
ac.uk/pdfs/isp_liability.pdf (accessed May 11, 2007).
8. Project Cleanfeed is cited as the “first mass censorship of the web attempted in a Western democracy,”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,
1232422,00.html.
9. For further information on Project Cleanfeed, see
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf
(accessed May 11, 2007).
194
Regional Overviews
Filtering of online content takes a variety of forms
among the states of Europe. Examples include
orders issued by states to ISPs to take down Web
sites that contain illegal content if they are hosted
within the country, blocking orders by enforcement authorities for illegal content hosted
abroad, and search engines that filter results pertaining to illegal content as a form of self-regulation. Although forms of filtering by search
engines and ISPs are often referred to as “voluntary self-regulation” in some countries, there
appears to be an implicit understanding that
cooperation with government orders will forestall
further legislation.
Filtering in European countries has also
given rise to several legal disputes over the question of jurisdiction involving content that is hosted
abroad. While the degree of filtering that takes
place tends to vary among states, there is a concern in many countries over an apparent increase
in the overall extent of filtering, as manifested in
recent proposals and revisions in laws. Filtering
in European states has, however, largely been
confined to content that is illegal, and the extent
has been tempered by public dialogue, adherence to law, and commitment to free speech,
although the latter is more constrained than it is
in the United States.
At the EU level there have been efforts over
the past decade to create a common platform of
“harmonized” Internet regulation. With regard to
the filtering of online content, the emphasis has
been on greater cooperation among industry, the
public, and enforcement authorities within states,
and increased voluntary industry selfregulation. Although EU level discussions were
initially focused on various forms of illegal content online (in particular child pornography and
racist and xenophobic content), there is
increased attention being paid toward the use of
the Internet for terrorism and organized crime in
recent years. The latter has spurred legislation in
the area of data retention, and much debate on
the need for greater security measures versus
the associated implications for privacy. There
have also been recent advancements in terms of
regulation at the EU level in the areas of defamation law, copyright, and defining ISP liability for
online content. Creating a common platform for
legislation at the regional level is a slow and complex process given the significant differences in
the cultures and existing legislations in the countries of the European Union.
Author: Sangamitra Ramachander
NOTES
1. See http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/internet/
communic.html#f10 (accessed May 11, 2007).
2. This has been followed by the Safer Internet Action
Plan (2002–2005) and the Safer Internet Plus
Programme (2005–2008).
3. See http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/internet/
communic.html#f10 (accessed May 11, 2007).
4. Even in the case of child pornography, variations
between countries exist pertaining to the definition of
child pornography, the range of criminal activities
that are subject to legislation (the possession, production, and dissemination of material, and so on),
the means of investigation, and the penalties. For an
overview of the national-level legislation and initiatives to counter child pornography in various countries, see http://www.inhope.org/en/about/about.html
(accessed May 11, 2007).
5. See http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/fr/internet/
actplan.html (accessed May 11, 2007).
6. http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/pdfs/isp_liability.pdf
(accessed May 11, 2007).
7. However, member states might impose additional
obligations for ISPs to immediately convey information to relevant authorities “of alleged illegal activities
undertaken, or information provided by recipients of
their service.” ISPs might also have to provide, on
request, information that enables the “identification
of recipients of their service with whom they have
storage agreements.” See http://www.jisclegal.
ac.uk/pdfs/isp_liability.pdf (accessed May 11, 2007).
8. Project Cleanfeed is cited as the “first mass censorship of the web attempted in a Western democracy,”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,
1232422,00.html.
9. For further information on Project Cleanfeed, see
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf
(accessed May 11, 2007).
194
Regional Overviews