Ah...

more poorly (or, perhaps, succinctly...nah) thought out legislation from the Eurobeast.

All Hail The Eurobeast.

Not our job guv

Presumably they don't say what happens outside the EU because they can't legislate outside the EU, as much as they'd like to. Might step on the yanks' toes saying what you can and do with their websites.

Europhobic quasilegal nonsense

Quote: "European law operates on the basis of “legislative certainty”. [snip] As Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP says “EU law defines what you may do. What it doesn't say you may do you can't do.” As opposed to the Common Law system which defines what you may not do and anything not expressly banned is allowed."

Ermm, it's quite a while since I studied law (in the Netherlands) and admittedly I didn't finish the course (found something technical and more fun to do), but this sounds like a load of guano to me.

First of all, a quick Google on "legislative certainty" suggests that the term "legislative certainty" simply relates to individuals and business being more certain about what effect legislation has on them, and has nothing to do with the above assertion.

Secondly, and more importantly, the suggestion that "EU law defines what you may do. What it doesn't say you may do you can't do.” would appear to be complete NONSENSE!!! (Apologies for the caps and exclamation marks.) There is simply no such concept - in mainland Europe too, any act is permitted as long as it is not specifically prohibited. Perhaps you could consult someone less biased than a UKIP plonker about this.

(As an aside, the system which contrasts with "common law" is "Roman law". Incidentally, unlike English law, Scottish law is heavily influenced by Roman law - what are UKIP going to do about that?)

Hmmmmm

That last point looks pathetically like you were trying to find something newsworthy, but failed.

Politicians should stick to politics

Internet was doing absolutly fine without the envolvment of law and politics

Go find some real life issues to practise laws on maybe higher level corruption and scandals

ahh that affects their own jobs

Everything allowed what is not prohibited

I am afraid Mr Godfrey Bloom, is not fully aware of how continental law works. I am not a lawer, hence if you are correct me if I am wrong, but I live in Poland and the rule Mr Bloom outlines applies to civil servants only. The law says what they can do (to do their job only, of course). If the law says nothing they can't do what they would like to. On the other hand regular citizens can do anything that is not explicitly prohibited.

Please Mr Bloom don't intimidate your fellow Britons.

wrong point

I beg to dispute the bit about "legislative certainty". Actually, Continental law is a mixture of both principles. In some cases, such as business-customer relations, you have to stick to what the law permits. In other cases, such as business-business relations, you are allowed anything the law does not prohibit.

The whole point about inability to use services outside the Community is nonsense. It does not mean anything else than that there shall be no restrictions for end-users within the Community "to access and use services..."

Hmmm

>That sounds rather benign, but the effect is that it is the European Union which decides what is lawful content and what is not, rather than national authorities. [...] It might also mean of course that content not to the taste of the Commission might be declared unlawful - not a power we might want them to have.

The EU doesn't decide on anything - it's an overarching collection of its component institutions (council, commission, court and parliament).

This is a parliamentary vote on proposals to set up a regulatory framework - it is the member states who can decide what is lawful or not. The two referenced directives (2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC) are about universal access - they don't set out lawfulness of any particular content.

To be honest, if you're drawing on a UKIP MEP for an understanding of how civil law works, you perhaps oughtn't be writing about it.

Loophole

Ah, but once everyone in "The Community" gets their mandatory Google brain implants, then it's go go go.

Common Law vs Roman Law

In Common Law, if it's not legislatively outlawed, then its OK. In Roman Law, if it's not legislatively OKed, then its outlawed.

Common Law is traditionally the law of places with lots of freedoms, Roman Law is traditionally the law of places with few freedoms.

Another case

Of not having people recognize that your rights are YOURS and don't belong to one (or multiple) governing bodies just because they aren't enumerated.

Common Law vs. Roman Law

Sounds much like Blacklist vs. Whitelist.

As opposed to the Common Law system...

... which defines what you may not do and anything not expressly banned is allowed.

Well, that was the way it *used* to work.

Unfortunately the way the current regime is working, soon we will be stuck with the dictum that "anything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden".

Ownzd

EU Commission says "All your accezz are belong to uz"

Unworkable and unenforceable.

Are these people complete idiots?

Sorry, they're poly-tic-ians so that's a given!

remind me again...

... why we need the EU to legislate on this sort of stuff?

Why does an ISP's responsibility to provide filtering (or not) need to be debated by the EU? Is there a pressing need for harmonisation across europe, lest competition be on an unlevel playing field?

My country may have rubbish laws, but at least I don't have to ask the Germans if I want them changed!

Self-determination, RIP.

Free software for *all* platforms?

My, my, my! Where are they going to find programmers who know how to write for Windows 3.1? I'm sure there are still a few diehards using truly ancient systems, never mind that the last 16-bit browser, Netscape 4.07, was buggier than a bum in a flophouse.

To say nothing of all the other fringe OSes.

Don't those idiots in the EU parliament know *anything*?

Besides, I thought the shibboleth "it's for the children" was past its use-before date.

PS: Another thought: has anybody *proven* that it's harmful to children to see depictions of adults fucking? The web has been porting pr0n into the brains of youth in a big way since abt. 1995 so by now, if pr0n is actually harmful to children, we should be seeing a tidal wave of sexual maladjustment in adults. I just looked out my door and didn't see a single sexually maladjusted adult.

Is it possible that early exposure to pr0n has beneficial effects? Perhaps the up and coming generation will in fact be better adjusted sexually than their parents ever were. It just seems to me that by shining a light into this branch of human life, there should be a lot less sniggering and giggling. Who knows, perhaps that mainstay of British humor, the word "underpants", will lose its sting in the process.

Well, which is it?

It seems some serious allegations of prejudiced reporting have been made against Mr Worstall by some posters who claim to know what they're talking about.

Either they're right or Mr Worstall's right, both cannot be telling the truth.

The longer we see no follow-up defense from Mr Worstall, the more readers will their draw conclusions from his silence.

The credibility of the Register is becoming increasingly suspect with articles like this along with its apparent sign up to blind-faith climate-change denial.

If the rot continues, will we even be able to trust its authority on core technology issues?

tosh

sounds like an article you would see in the Daily Mail (ie rubbish) the phrase pinch of salt springs to mind

The Register an outpost of The Daily Mail

amanfromMars

.... I understood 100% of his post..... :eep:

Another wee thing

"«should ensure that end-users are able to access and distribute any lawful content and to use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice» [...] That sounds rather benign, but the effect is that it is the European Union which decides what is lawful content and what is not, rather than national authorities."

No it doesn't. It doesn't at all. It doesn't even mean anything close to that. It means that the provider doesn't have the right to prevent users from accessing legal content, and doesn't have the right to prevent users from using whichever software they want to.

As an aside, this is the third article from this author that I read, and this is the third that is made of at least 3/5 made up "facts" and complete nonsense.

Splash one...

Well, I'm fairly convinced. It looks to me as though this article's been pretty comprehensively shot down. So does the author have any comment to make?

the next step

... is EC seizing control of all not expressly permited websites in the world (following example of US state judges).

@RW

I cant ignore you any longer.

You obviously dont have any children - and probably thats a good thing.

Of course its not been *proven* that children watching those activities of adults are harmed.

But it has been proven, many times, that children copy adult behaviour. You want the teenage pregnancy rate to rise even further? You want the youth of this country to be single parents and miss out on childhood, miss out on university education and a good well paid job and a happy life?

Children should be allowed to stay children for as long as possible - until they are forced to grow up and deal with the rubbish that adults have to put up with in this country.

You can't use Google

You do your subscribers a great disservice by publishing such rubbish about EU law especially by repeating such obviously ignorant clap trap. Do please try to do a little research before quoting such utter know-nothings like Godfrey Bloom. On his first day in the European Parliament, he made the following public statement "No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age."

Enough said.