http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/world/europe/rare-opposition-protests-in-hungary.html

Share/Bookmark

[Press release: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/pressroom/content/20110310IPR15259/html/Hungarian-media-needs-to-be-changed-further-says-European-Parliament ]

[Original:]

P7_TA-PROV(2011)0094
Media law in Hungary
European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2011 on media law in Hungary

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Articles 49, 56, 114, 167 and 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) relating to respect for and the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression and information and the right to media pluralism,
– having regard to Directive 2010/13/EU of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive – AVMSD),
– having regard to the European Charter on Freedom of the Press of 25 May 2009, to the Commission’s working document on media pluralism in EU Member States (SEC(2007)0032), to the ‘three-step approach to media pluralism’ defined by the Commission, and to the independent study carried out on behalf of the Commission and finalised in 2009,
– having regard to its resolutions of 22 April 2004 on the risks of violation in the European Union and particularly in Italy of freedom of expression and information [OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 1026.], of 25 September 2008 on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union [Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0459.], and of 7 September 2010 on journalism and new media – creating a public sphere in Europe,
– having regard to the statements by the Commission, to the parliamentary questions tabled and debates held in the European Parliament on 8 October 2009, regarding freedom of information in Italy, and on 8 September 2010, and to the discussions held in the joint meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee) and the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT Committee) on 17 January 2011 regarding the Hungarian media law,
– having regard to the decision by the LIBE Committee to request the Fundamental Rights Agency to issue an annual comparative report on the situation with regard to media freedom, pluralism and independent governance in the EU Member States, including indicators,
– having regard to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, in particular Articles 5(2), 7, and 11 thereof,
– having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas the European Union is founded on the values of democracy and the rule of law, as stipulated in Article 2 TEU, and consequently guarantees and promotes freedom of expression and of information, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Article 10 of the ECHR, and recognises the legal value of the rights, freedoms and principles as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which it has also demonstrated by acceding to the ECHR, for which media freedom and pluralism are essential prerequisites, and whereas these rights include freedom to express opinions and freedom to receive and communicate information without control, interference or pressure from public authorities,
B. whereas media pluralism and freedom continue to be matters of grave concern in the EU and its Member States, notably in Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic and Estonia, as highlighted by the recent criticism of the media law and constitutional changes enacted in Hungary between June and December 2010 which has been voiced by international organisations, such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, by a large number of international and national journalists’ organisations, by editors and publishers, by NGOs active in the areas of human rights and civil liberties, and by Member States and the Commission,
C. whereas the Commission raised concerns and requested information from the Hungarian Government regarding the conformity of the Hungarian media law with the AVMSD and the acquis communautaire in general, notably in relation to the obligation to offer balanced coverage applicable to all audiovisual media service providers, and also questioned whether that law complied with the principle of proportionality and respected the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the country-of-origin principle and registration requirements, and whereas the Hungarian Government responded by providing further information and by commencing the process of amending the law to address the points raised by the Commission,
D. whereas the OSCE expressed serious reservations regarding the scope of the Hungarian laws (material and territorial scope), freedom of expression and the regulation of content, the appointment of one person to act as the national media and telecommunications authority, and compliance with the principles governing public-service broadcasting [Analysis and assessment of a package of Hungarian legislation and draft legislation on media and telecommunications, prepared by Dr Karol Jakubowicz for the OSCE.], indicating that the new legislation undermined media pluralism, abolished the political and financial independence of the public-service media and cemented the negative features for the free media in the long term, and that the Media Authority and Media Council were politically homogeneous [Letter of 14 January 2010 from the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media to the Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.] and exerted pervasive and centralised governmental and political control over all media; whereas further concerns included the disproportionate and extreme penalties imposed for debatable and undefined reasons, the lack of an automatic procedure for suspending penalties in the event of an appeal to the courts against a Media Authority ruling, the violation of the principle of the confidentiality of journalistic sources and the protection of family values,
E. sharing the serious reservations expressed by the OSCE in relation to the politically homogeneous composition of the Media Authority and Media Council, the timeframe, the exertion of a pervasive and centralised governmental, judicial and political control over all media, the fact that the most problematic features of the legislation contravene OSCE and international standards on freedom of expression, for example by doing away with the political and financial independence of public-service media, the scope of the regulation (material and territorial), and the decision not to define key terms, making it impossible for journalists to know when they may be breaking the law,
F. whereas the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights called on the Hungarian authorities, when reviewing the media law, to take account of Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression and media pluralism, the relevant recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and, in particular, the binding standards set out in the ECHR and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights; whereas he referred to the use of unclear definitions which are open to misinterpretation, the establishment of politically unbalanced regulatory machinery with disproportionate powers which is not subject to full judicial supervision, threats to the independence of public-service broadcast media, and erosion of the protection of journalists’ sources; whereas he also stressed the need for all relevant stakeholders, including opposition parties and civil society, to be able to participate in a meaningful manner in the review of this legislation, which regulates such a fundamental aspect of the functioning of a democratic society [ http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/News/2011/110201Hungary_en.asp ],
G. whereas, in a second opinion issued on 25 February 2011, the Commissioner for Human Rights recommends a ‘wholesale review’ of the Hungarian media law package, with the objectives, inter alia, of reinstating precise legislation promoting a pluralistic and independent media, and strengthening the guarantees that media regulatory mechanisms will be immune from political influence [ https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1751289 ]; whereas he further states that the media in Hungary must be able to perform their role as watchdog in a pluralistic democratic society and that in order to achieve this, Hungary should abide by its commitments as a member state of the Council of Europe and make the most of that organisation’s expertise in the fields of freedom of expression and media independence and pluralism,
H. whereas the Hungarian media law should consequently be suspended as a matter of urgency and reviewed on the basis of the Commission’s, OSCE’s and Council of Europe’s comments and proposals, in order to ensure that it is fully in conformity with EU law and European values and standards on media freedom, pluralism and independent media governance,
I. whereas, despite repeated calls by Parliament for a directive on media freedom, pluralism and independent governance, the Commission has up to now delayed this proposal, which has become increasingly necessary and urgent,
J. whereas the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership, as established in June 1993 at the Copenhagen European Council, relating to freedom of the press and freedom of expression should be upheld by all EU Member States and enforced through relevant EU legislation,
K. whereas, in paragraphs 45 and 46 of its judgment in joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, the Court of Justice has held that access to information enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system and that it ‘is a precondition for the effective exercise of citizens’ democratic rights’,

1. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to restore the independence of media governance and halt state interference with freedom of expression and ‘balanced coverage’, and believes that over-regulation of the media is counterproductive, jeopardising effective pluralism in the public sphere;

8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Council of Europe, the governments and parliaments of Member States, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&type=TA&reference=20110310&secondRef=TOC

Share/Bookmark

The four parties (see below) have 358 votes (48% of the total 736 votes; 50%+1: 11 votes are missing).

Voting: tomorrow, 12-13h

JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
14.2.2011

pursuant to Rule 110(4) of the Rules of Procedure
replacing the motions by the following groups:
Verts/ALE (B7‑0103/2011)
ALDE (B7‑0104/2011)
GUE/NGL (B7‑0107/2011)
S&D (B7‑0112/2011)

on media law in Hungary

[...]

European Parliament resolution on media law in Hungary

The European Parliament,

[...]

1. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to restore the independence of media governance and halt state interference with freedom of expression and balanced media coverage, and believes that over-regulation of the media is counterproductive, jeopardising effective pluralism in the public sphere;

2. Welcomes the Commission initiative to request clarifications on the Hungarian media law and its conformity with EU Treaties and law and the announcement made by the Hungarian authorities in relation to their readiness to amend the law;

3. Deplores the Commission’s decision to target only three points in connection with the implementation of the acquis communautaire by Hungary and the lack of any reference to Article 30 of the AVMSD, which has the effect of limiting the Commission’s own competence to scrutinise Hungary’s compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights when implementing EU law; urges the Commission to examine Hungary’s compliance with the liability arrangements laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce and Hungary’s transposition of the EU framework decisions on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (2008/913/JHA) and on combating terrorism (2008/919/JHA), which include references to freedom of expression and circumventions of the rules on media freedom;

4. Calls on the Commission to proceed in a swift and timely manner with its thorough examination of the issue of bringing the Hungarian media law into conformity with European legislation, particularly the Charter on Fundamental Rights, to set a tight deadline for the Hungarian authorities to change the law, and should the deadline not be met, initiate infringement proceedings;

5. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to involve all stakeholders in the revision of the media law and of the Constitution, which is the basis for a democratic society founded on the rule of law, with appropriate checks and balances to safeguard the fundamental rights of the minority against the risk of the tyranny of the majority;

6. Calls on the Commission to act, on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, by proposing a legislative initiative pursuant to Article 225 TFEU on media freedom, pluralism and independent governance before the end of the year, thereby overcoming the inadequacies of the EU’s legislative framework on the media, making use of its competences in the fields of the internal market, audiovisual policy, competition, telecommunications, State subsidies, the public-service obligation and the fundamental rights of every person resident on EU territory, with a view to defining at least the minimum essential standards that all Member States must meet and respect in national legislation in order to ensure, guarantee and promote freedom of information and an adequate level of media pluralism and independent media governance;

7. Calls on the Hungarian authorities, in the event that the media law is found to be incompatible with the letter or spirit of the Treaties or EU law, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to repeal and not to apply the law or those elements thereof that are found to be incompatible, in accordance with the comments and proposals made by the European Parliament, the Commission, the OSCE and the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights, the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the case-law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights;

8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Council of Europe, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P7-RC-2011-0103&language=EN

Share/Bookmark

Internet Is Easy Prey For Governments http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/07/014258/Internet-Is-Easy-Prey-For-Governments
Global net crackdown to shatter ‘utopian’ internet: experts http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/global-net-crackdown-to-shatter-utopian-internet-experts-20110204-1ag3i.html

As the Egyptian protests show, technologies that democratize communications can also centralize control http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/02/egypt-technology.html

(How Was Egypt’s Internet Access Shut Off? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=egypt-internet-mubarak )

(USA: Internet ‘kill switch’ bill will return: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20029282-281.html 
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/kill-switch-legislation/ http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/30/0044222/Internet-Kill-Switch-Back-On-the-US-Legislative-Agenda
Civil
 Liberties
 Issues
 in 
Cybersecurity
 Bill: https://cdt.org/files/pdfs/20100624_joint_cybersec_letter.pdf
Cf. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/01/Myth-v-Reality.pdf )

(How To Stop Domain Names Being Seized By The US Government http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-stop-domain-names-being-seized-by-the-us-government-110205/ )

(Communicate if Your Government Shuts Off Your Internet http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Communicate_if_Your_Government_Shuts_Off_Your_Internet )

Should Internet access be an inalienable right? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012806250.html

#Egypt Proves We Need a New Net http://rushkoff.com/2011/02/05/egypt-proves-we-need-a-new-net/ (“And, as we saw when push came to shove over WikiLeaks in the United States, how quickly this very same authority can be used to cut off “enemies of the state” from access and funding.”)

Projects:

1. Dot-P2P

Dot-P2P http://dot-p2p.org/ , an alternative DNS hierarchy that resists censorship. The project aims to create a new top-level domain, .p2p, and name-resolution software that will hook into the normal client DNS resolver. (However, the new software will not interfere with name resolution for traditional TLDs like .com and .net.) Dot-p2p developers expect the .p2p service infrastructure to be mobile and hence flexible under attack; by contrast, administration is currently expected to be centralized. However, the developers would like to see a design for decentralized administration as well.
HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1954391
Cf. Why the P2P DNS project will not work http://sam.sargeant.name/post/2109713451/p2p-dns-wont-work http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1972834

2. Tonika

Tonika http://5ttt.org is an administration-free platform for large-scale open-membership (social) networks with robust security, anonymity, resilience and performance guarantees.
Comparison: http://blog.5ttt.org/2011/01/egypts-internet-fiasco.html

3. Starfish

Goal “Enable the creation of a world-wide user-controlled network of both wired and wirelessnodes based on a distributed architecture.” http://kemenczy.at/files/Starfish%20Concept.pdf

http://kemenczy.at/index.php/starfish

4. Digitata

http://digitata.org plans to provide the resources and information to local communities, NGOs, aid orginisations on how to build a digitata and technical specifications to manufactures who wish to support the principals by creating the hardware. To become a central repository of technical specifications and experiences to help everybody. The ultimate vision to see digitatas grown all over the world where access to the internet and teaching resources is limited, that children around the world have the opportunity to discover technology for themselves. Achieving this by means of low cost mass produced standardised kits which can customised to their environments.

5. Daihinia
Daihinia™ http://daihinia.com/ is a tool for WiFi. It turns a simple Ad-Hoc network into a Multi-hop Ad-Hoc network. Multi-hop Ad-Hoc networks offer a higher level of flexibility than the usual Infrastructure Mode: in Infrastructure Mode all the computers have to be in the range of the Access Point, while in Multi-hop Ad-Hoc networks they have to be within one another’s range.

6. Netsukuku
Netsukuku http://netsukuku.freaknet.org/ is designed to be a distributed, anonymous mesh network that relies only on normal wireless network cards. FreakNet is even building its own domain name architecture. http://www.masternewmedia.org/the-alternative-p2p-wireless-internet-network-the-netsukuku-idea/
Code: http://dev.hinezumi.org/browser/netsukuku/sandbox/lukisi/branches

Share/Bookmark

Bitcoin has (briefly) reached USD parity and is trading at a 10% spread. I would not have expected that to happen, through it might still be cheating: someone swapping his own BTC and USD back-and-forth to create an illusion. As long as there are no outside parties with large amounts of BTC to tap into this, the guy is safe. Come to think of it, it’s actually not a bad way to bootstrap the digital commodity…

6 hours ago · Like ·

You and Attila Lendvai likes this.

Peter Földiák

That is what’s called a “market maker”, right?

6 hours ago · Like

Daniel A. Nagy

Not quite. A market maker is one who puts forth both buy and sell offers. He expects to profit and never trades with oneself. One who trades with oneself at an inflated price can expect to lose money.

6 hours ago · Like

Share/Bookmark

Original: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293

Cf.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

Share/Bookmark

“We need a cyber world that enables people to validate their identities securely, but with minimal disclosure of information when they’re doing sensitive transactions (like banking) – and lets them stay anonymous when they’re not (like blogging). We need a vibrant marketplace that provides people with choices among multiple accredited identity providers – both private and public – and choices among multiple credentials. For example, imagine that a student could get a digital credential from her cell phone provider and another one from her university and use either of them to log-in to her bank, her e-mail, her social networking site, and so on, all without having to remember dozens of passwords. Such a marketplace will ensure that no single credential or centralized database can emerge. In this world, we can cut losses from fraud and identity theft, as well as cut costs for businesses and government by reducing inefficient identification procedures. We can put in-person services online without security trade-offs, thereby providing greater convenience for everyone.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/national-program-office-enhancing-online-trust-and-privacy

Share/Bookmark

Almost full text of

• the “Act on [...] the fundamental rules on media content” http://www.kim.gov.hu/misc/letoltheto/act_civ_media_content.pdf and
• the “Act on media services and mass media” http://www.kim.gov.hu/misc/letoltheto/media_law_04012011.pdf

Quotations:

Act on the freedom of the press (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak ) and the fundamental rules on media content:

“TITLE I DEFINITION OF TERMS
Article 1 [...] 6. Printed press materials: Individual issues of daily newspapers and other periodicals as well as on-line newspapers and news portals provided as a service for profit, for the content of which a natural or legal person or a business association without legal personality bears editorial responsibility, the primary objective of which is to distribute textual or image contents to the public for information, entertainment or training purposes in a printed form or via an electronic communications network.” -

i.e., blogs with ads are “printed press materials”.

“TITLE II SCOPE OF THE ACT
Article 2 (1) This Act shall apply to media services and printed press materials provided by a media content provider established in the Republic of Hungary.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a media content provider shall be deemed as established in the Republic of Hungary when it meets the following criteria: [...]
c) when either the central seat of executive management or the place where editorial decisions are made is located in the territory of the Republic of Hungary, with the majority of the media content provider’s staff being employed in the territory of the Republic of Hungary”

“Article 3 [...] (4) In case of violation of this Act, the Media Council of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority may proceed and apply sanctions in accordance with the provisions of the Media Act on official proceedings.” –

Only Fidesz nominees were elected to the Media Council, meaning that no places were left for the opposition or the Fidesz alliance (KDNP) party.

“TITLE III FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Article 4 [...] (3) The exercise of the freedom of the press may not [...] violate public morals [...].” -

i.e., sensibility of churches and of the majority.

“Article 5 (1) The Act may set official registration as a precondition for [...] the publication of printed press materials.” -

e.g. blogs, see the definition above

“Article 6 – (3) In exceptionally justified cases, courts or authorities may – in the interest of protecting national security and public order or uncovering or preventing criminal acts – require the media service provider and any person employed by or engaged, in any other legal relationship intended for the performance of work, with the media content provider to reveal the identity of the informant.”

“TITLE VI OBLIGATIONS OF THE PRESS
Article 13 (1) All media content providers shall provide authentic, rapid and accurate information on local, national and EU affairs and on any event that bears relevance to the citizens of the Republic of Hungary and members of the Hungarian nation.
(2) Linear and on-demand media content providers engaged in news coverage operations shall provide comprehensive, factual, up-to-date, objective and balanced coverage on local, national and European issues that may be of interest for the general public and on any event bearing relevance to the citizens of the Republic of Hungary and members of the Hungarian nation.”

“Article 16
The media content provider shall respect the constitutional order of the Republic of Hungary [...].” -

the ruling Fidesz party, based on its supermajority in Parliament, have radically limited the scope of constitutional supervision in the country, effectively suspending what was a constitutional democratic republic
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ac8db2a-f1af-11df-bb5a-00144feab49a.html , and de facto pushing national-corporatist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism values on us. Actually, they are creating a new constitution for Hungary, alone, based on de jure these values as well.

Should we respect a national-corporatist order, be it however constitutional?

“Article 17 [...] (2) The media content may not offend [...] against – whether expressedly or by implication – [...] any majority as well as any church or religious groups.” – no comment.

Act on media services and mass media:

[No comment]:

“General Provisions
Article 41 [...] (4) The Authority shall keep an administrative register of [...]
i) online media products and news portals.”

“Article 187
(1) In case of repeated infringement, the Media Council and the Agency shall have the right to impose a fine on the senior officer of the infringing entity in an amount not exceeding HUF 2,000,000 [EUR 7,000], in line with the gravity, nature of the infringement and the circumstances of the particular case. [...]

Cf. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=GDP/capita+Hugary+/+GDP/capita+UK

(3) The Media Council and the Agency [...] shall have the right to impose the following legal consequences: [...]
b) it may impose a fine on the infringer in line with the following limits:
ba) in case of infringement by a JBE media service provider and the media service provider under the regulations on the limitation of media market concentration, the fine shall be of an amount not exceeding HUF 200,000,000 [more than EUR 700,000]; [...]
bc) in case of a newspaper of nationwide distribution, the fine shall be of an amount not exceeding HUF 25,000,000 [EUR 90,000]; [...]
bf) in case of an online media product, the fine shall be of an amount not exceeding HUF 25,000,000 [EUR 90,000];
bg) in case of a broadcaster, the fine shall be an amount not exceeding HUF 5,000,000;
bh) in case of an intermediary service provider, the fine shall be of an amount not exceeding HUF 3,000,000 [...]
d) it may suspend the exercise of the media service provision right for a specific period of time”

“Responsibility of the broadcasters and intermediary service providers for the broadcasting of media services and media products
Article 188
(1) The broadcaster and the intermediary service provider shall be responsible for the broadcasting of media services and media products in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2)-(4) and Article 189.
(2) The broadcaster may be obliged to suspend or terminate the broadcasting of media services in accordance with Article 189.
(3) The intermediary service provider may be obliged to suspend the broadcasting of media services and online media products in accordance with Article 189.
(4) The broadcaster shall not be responsible for the content of the programme of the media service provider resident in a state party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and European Convention on Transborder Television and in its supplementary Protocol signed in Strasbourg on 5 May 1989 and promulgated by Act 49 of 1998. The broadcaster, however, may be obliged to suspend the broadcasting of the media service under Article 189, taking into account of the provisions of Articles 176–180.

Article 189
(1) When the Media Council resorts to the legal consequence against the media service provider [...] the broadcaster shall [...] terminate the broadcasting of the media service covered in the resolution as defined in the request.
(2) When [...] the [...] the media service provider fails to fulfil the terms of the final and executable resolution specifying also legal consequences at the request of the Media Council or the Agency, the broadcaster [...] shall suspend the broadcasting of the media service covered in the resolution as defined in the request. [...]
(4) When — in case of an online media product — [...] the publisher fails to fulfil the terms of the final and
executable resolution specifying also legal consequences at the request of the Media Council or the Agency, the broadcaster [...] shall suspend the broadcasting of the media product covered in the resolution as defined in the request. [...]
(6) When the broadcaster and/or the intermediary service provider fails to fulfil the provisions of the request defined in paragraph (1)–(4), the Media Council or the Agency shall institute ex officio administrative proceedings against the broadcaster or the intermediary service provider and shall have the right to apply the legal consequences defined in Article 187 (3) (bg) or (bh).”

INTERPRETATION
Section 203 [...]
30. Intermediary service provider shall mean the service provider providing services in connection with the information society, which
a) is engaged in the transmission of the information supplied by the recipient of services through a telecommunications network or the provision access to the telecommunications network (mere conduit and network-access);
b) [...] (caching);
c) is engaged in the storage of the information supplied by the recipient of the service (hosting);
d) [...] (search services). [...]

42. Media content shall mean any content offered in the course of media services and in media products. [...]

60. Media product shall mean individual issues of dailies or other periodical papers, internet newspapers or news portals, which are offered as a business service, for the contents of which a natural or legal person, or a business entity with no legal personality has editorial responsibility, and the primary purpose of which is to convey contents consisting of text or images to the general public with the aim of providing information, pleasure or education, in a printed format or through any electronic telecommunications network. [...]”

In Hungarian:

• http://www.complex.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A1000104.TV
• http://www.complex.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A1000185.TV

Cf.: http://www.ekint.org/ekint_files/File/hungarian%20ngos%20assessing%20the%20second%20wave%20of%20legislation.pdf

Share/Bookmark

Titelseite der Népszabadság: In Ungarn wurde die Pressefreiheit aufgehoben

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

“The Hungarian equivalent of FCC established that the Budapest based community radio Tilos endangered the mental, emotional and sexual development of Hungarian children under 16 by airing ICE-T’s It’s On before 9pm. The regulatory body asserts that children understood the lyrics, the ghetto-slang, and were directly influenced by them, and therefore objectify women and glorify violence.” Balázs Bodó

Original: http://hirek.tilos.hu/?p=1745 [in Hungarian]

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article11825311/Europa-darf-Ungarn-jetzt-nicht-isolieren.html

Share/Bookmark

http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/12/putin-orders-russian-move-to-gnulinux.html

Share/Bookmark

Eötvös Károly Institute, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Transparency International Magyarország:
Assessing the First Wave of Legislation by Hungary’s New Parliament 23 July 2010 http://helsinki.hu/dokumentum/Hungarian_NGOs_assessing_legislation_July2010.pdf

Eötvös Károly Institute, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Hungarian Helsinki Committee:
The second wave of legislation by Hungary’s new Parliament – Violating the rule of law 13 December 2010 http://www.ekint.org/ekint_files/File/hungarian%20ngos%20assessing%20the%20second%20wave%20of%20legislation.pdf

Share/Bookmark