Kas Internet’i regulatsioon on võimalik? Euroopalikud vastused Infopoliitika FOORUM 26.veebruaril 2004 Andres Jõesaar

Euroopa vs USA USA –konstitutsiooni alusel sõnavabadus eelkõige (hate speech on lubatud) –Interneti sisu (content) eraldi piiranguid ei vaja Euroopa –Interneti sisu vajab regulatsiooni, aga ka kaitset piirangute eest

Kes ja mida reguleerib? Euroopa Nõukogu Ministrite Komitee Konventsioon (Convention) Resolutsioon (Resolution) Deklaratsioon (Declaration) Soovitus (Recommendation) Euroopa Liit Direktiiv (Directive) (White paper)

(Mõned) Vastuvõetud dokumendid Rec (2003)9 on measures to promote the democratic and social contribution of digital broadcasting Rec (2002)2 on access to official documents Rec (2001) 8 on self-regulation concerning cyber content Rec (2001) 7 on measures to protect copyright and neighbouring rights and combat piracy, especially in the digital environment Rec (2000) 23 on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector Rec (2000) 7on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information Declaration on a European policy for new information technologies (1999)

Euroopa Liidu direktiivid Privaatsus telekommunikatsioonis Directive on privacy and electronic communications (2002/54/EC) E-äri direktiiv Directive on electronic commerce (2000/31/EC)

Euroopa Nõukogu European policy for new information technologies (Decl 1999) Universal community services concerning new communication and information services (Rec 1999) Self-regulation Concerning Cyber Content (Rec 2001) Freedom of communication on the Internet (Decl 2003)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS Declaration on freedom of communication on the Internet Interneti (kommunikatsiooni)vabaduse deklaratsioon

1.printsiip: Reeglid sisule Content rules for the Internet Member states should not subject content on the Internet to restrictions which go further than those applied to other means of content delivery. Kõik, mis on seaduslik off-line’is, on seaduslik ka on-line’is.

2.printsiip: Enese- ja kaasregulatsioon Self-regulation or co-regulation Member states should encourage self- regulation or co-regulation regarding content disseminated on the Internet. Regulatsiooni on vaja, kuid tuleb soodustada eelkõige eneseregulatsiooni. Võimalikult vähe riiki.

3.printsiip: Riikliku eelkontrolli puudumine Absence of prior state control Public authorities should not, through general blocking or filtering measures, deny access by the public to information and other communication on the Internet, regardless of frontiers. Laste kaitseks võib koolides, raamatukogudes ja teistes avalikes kohtades filtreerimist ja/või blokeerimist kasutada.

4.printsiip: Takistuste eemaldamine inimeste osalemiseks info-ühiskonnas Removal of barriers to the participation of individuals in the information society Member states should foster and encourage access for all to Internet communication and information services on a non-discriminatory basis at an affordable price. Kõigile mõistliku hinna eest vaba juurdepääs

Furthermore, the active participation of the public, for example by setting up and running individual websites, should not be subject to any licensing or other requirements having a similar effect.

5.Printsiip: Internetis teenuste pakkumise vabadus Freedom to provide services via the Internet The provision of services via the Internet should not be made subject to specific authorisation schemes on the sole grounds of the means of transmission used.

Member states should seek measures to promote a pluralistic offer of services via the Internet which caters to the different needs of users and social groups. Service providers should be allowed to operate in a regulatory framework which guarantees them non- discriminatory access to national and international telecommunication networks.

6.Printsiip: ISP-de piiratud vastutus Interneti sisu eest Limited liability of service providers for Internet content Member states should not impose on service providers a general obligation to monitor content on the Internet to which they give access, that they transmit or store, nor that of actively seeking facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. ISP-del ei ole üldist sisu monitooringu kohustust.

Member states should ensure that service providers are not held liable for content on the Internet when their function is limited, as defined by national law, to transmitting information or providing access to the Internet. In cases where the functions of service providers are wider and they store content emanating from other parties, member states may hold them co-responsible if they do not act expeditiously to remove or disable access to information or services as soon as they become aware, as defined by national law, of their illegal nature or, in the event of a claim for damages, of facts or circumstances revealing the illegality of the activity or information.

... due care must be taken to respect the freedom of expression of those who made the information available in the first place, as well as the corresponding right of users to the information. In all /.../ cases limitations of liability should not affect the possibility of issuing injunctions where service providers are required to terminate or prevent, to the extent possible, an infringement of the law.... limitations of liability should not affect the possibility of issuing injunctions where service providers are required to terminate or prevent, to the extent possible, an infringement of the law.

7.printsiip: Anonüümsus In order to ensure protection against online surveillance and to enhance the free expression of information and ideas, member states should respect the will of users of the Internet not to disclose their identity. Austada kasutajate tahet oma isikut mitte avaldada.

This does not prevent member states from taking measures and co-operating in order to trace those responsible for criminal acts, in accordance with national law, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international agreements in the fields of justice and the police.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS Recommendation on the right of reply in the new media environment Vastulause esitamise õigus uues meedias Asendab resolutsiooni (74)26 Vastulause esitamise õigus – kodaniku positsioon suhetes pressiga

Definitsioon The term “medium” refers to any means of communication for the periodic dissemination to the public of information, whether on-line or off-line, such as newspapers, periodicals, radio, television and web-based news services.

1.printsiip: Ulatus Scope of the right of reply Kõigil isikutel peab olema võimalus kasutada vastulause esitamise õigust teda puudutavate valede faktide parandamiseks.

2.printsiip: Kohesus Promptness The request for a reply should be addressed to the medium concerned within a reasonably short time from the publication of the contested information. The medium in question should make public the reply without undue delay. Põhjendamatu viivitus ei ole lubatud.

3.printsiip: Nähtavus Prominence The reply should be given, as far as possible, the same prominence as was given to the contested information in order for to reach the same public and with the same impact. Vastulause tuleb avaldada nii, te sellel oleks samale publikule sama mõju.

4.printsiip: Tasuta Free of charge The reply should be made public free of charge for the person concerned. Vastulause esitajale peab vastulause avaldamine olema tasuta.

.printsiip: Erandid 5.printsiip: Erandid (Exceptions) Meedium võib keelduda juhul kui vastulause: on vajalikust pikem ei piirdu faktide parandamisega sisaldab solvangut on vastuolus kolmandate osapoolte seaduslike huvidega esitaja ei tõesta oma huvide legitiimsust edastas tõeselt ametnike või kohtute poolt esitatut on esitatud teises keeles

.printsiip: Effektiivse rakendamise tagamine 6.printsiip: Effektiivse rakendamise tagamine Safeguarding an effective exercise of the right of reply In order to sefaguard the effective exercise of the right of reply, the medium should make public the name and contact details of the person to whom request to publish a reply can be addressed. Iga meedium peab avaldama kontaktisiku nime ja kontaktaadressi.

.printsiip: Elektroonilised arhiivid 7.printsiip: Elektroonilised arhiivid Electronic archives If the contested information is kept publicly available in electronic archives and a right of reply has been granted, a link should be established between teh two i f possible, in order to draw the attention of the user to the fact that the original information has been subject to a response. Avalikkusele avatud arhiivides peab algmaterjali juures olema vastulausele viitav link.

8.printsiip: Vaidluste lahendamine Settlement of disputes If a medium refuses a request to publish a reply, or if the reply is not published in a manner satisfactory for the person concerned, the possibility should exist for latter to bring the dispute before a tribunal or another body with the power to order the immediate publication of the reply. Kui meedium keeldub, siis peab olema võimalus pöörduda kohtu või mõne muu vastavat võimu omava organi poole.

Mis meil kõigest sellest? Ühiskonna ootustele vastav eneseregulatsioon võimaldab vältida riigi liigset sekkumist. Riikliku bürokraatia minimiseerimine hoiab kokku riigi, st maksumaksja raha.

Informatsioon