I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament’s demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens’ legitimate demands. Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens’ lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this mascarade.
Kader Arif, rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament
Tagged: European Union RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
mazsa
-
mazsa
Hey Europe: sorry about my PM + The Unconstitutional Constitution
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/the-unconstitutional-constitution/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/world/europe/rare-opposition-protests-in-hungary.html
-
mazsa
Europe versus Facebook’s 22 complaints:
1. Pokes.
Pokes are kept even after the user “removes” them.2. Shadow Profiles.
Facebook is collecting data about people without their knowledge. This information is used to substitute existing profiles and to create profiles of non-users.3. Tagging.
Tags are used without the specific consent of the user. Users have to “untag” themselves (opt-out).
Info: Facebook announced changes.4. Synchronizing.
Facebook is gathering personal data e.g. via its iPhone-App or the “friend finder”. This data is used by Facebook without the consent of the data subjects.5. Deleted Postings.
Postings that have been deleted showed up in the set of data that was received from Facebook.6. Postings on other Users’ Pages.
Users cannot see the settings under which content is distributed that they post on other’s pages.7. Messages.
Messages (incl. Chat-Messages) are stored by Facebook even after the user “deleted” them. This means that all direct communication on Facebook can never be deleted.8. Privacy Policy and Consent.
The privacy policy is vague, unclear and contradictory. If European and Irish standards are applied, the consent to the privacy policy is not valid.9. Face Recognition.
The new face recognition feature is an inproportionate violation of the users right to privacy. Proper information and an unambiguous consent of the users is missing.10. Access Request.
Access Requests have not been answered fully. Many categories of information are missing.11. Deleted Tags.
Tags that were “removed” by the user, are only deactivated but saved by Facebook.
Filed with the Irish DPC12. Data Security.
In its terms, Facebook says that it does not guarantee any level of data security.
Filed with the Irish DPC13. Applications.
Applications of “friends” can access data of the user. There is no guarantee that these applications are following European privacy standards.14. Deleted Friends.
All removed friends are stored by Facebook.15. Excessive processing of Data.
Facebook is hosting enormous amounts of personal data and it is processing all data for its own purposes.
It seems Facebook is a prime example of illegal “excessive processing”.16. Opt-Out.
Facebook is running an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system, which is required by European law.17. Like Button.
The Like Button is creating extended user data that can be used to track users all over the internet. There is no legitimate purpose for the creation of the data. Users have not consented to the use.18. Obligations as Processor.
Facebook has certain obligations as a provider of a “cloud service” (e.g. not using third party data for its own purposes or only processing data when instructed to do so by the user).19. Picture Privacy Settings.
The privacy settings only regulate who can see the link to a picture. The picture itself is “public” on the internet. This makes it easy to circumvent the settings.20. Deleted Pictures.
Facebook is only deleting the link to pictures. The pictures are still public on the internet for a certain period of time (more than 32 hours).21. Groups.
Users can be added to groups without their consent. Users may end up in groups that lead other to false impressions about a person.22. New Policies.
The policies are changed very frequently, users do not get properly informed, they are not asked to consent to new policies. -
mazsa
EUDataProtectionSupervisor: No privacy without net neutrality “78. Inspection techniques based on traffic data and inspection of IP payloads, i.e. the content of communications, may reveal users’ Internet activity: websites visited and activities on those sites, use of P2P applications, files downloaded, emails sent and received, from whom, on what subject and in which terms, etc. ISPs may want to use this information to prioritise some communications, such as video on demand, over others. They may want to use it to identify viruses, or to build profiles in order to serve behavioural advertising. These actions interfere with the right to the confidentiality of communications.” http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-10-07_Net_neutrality_EN.pdf
[Via http://www.laquadrature.net/en/no-privacy-without-net-neutrality ]
-
mazsa
Does European integration make a major European war less likely, or more?
David Friedman -
mazsa
“[...] Data Retention Directive does not meet the requirements set out by the rights to privacy and data protection, for the following reasons:
- the necessity of data retention as provided for in the Data Retention Directive has not been sufficiently demonstrated;
- data retention could have been regulated in a less privacy-intrusive way;
- the Data Retention Directive lacks foreseeability.
86. The EDPS calls upon the Commission to consider seriously all options in the impact assessment including the possibility of repealing the Directive, either per se or combined with a proposal for an alternative, more targeted EU measure.
87. A future Data Retention Directive could be considered only if there were agreement on the need for EU rules from the perspective of the internal market and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and if, during the impact assessment, the necessity of data retention, supported and regulated by the EU, could be sufficiently demonstrated, which includes a careful consideration of alternative measures. Such an instrument should fulfil the following basic requirements:
- It should be comprehensive and genuinely harmonise rules on the obligation to retain data, as well as on the access and further use of the data by competent authorities.
- It should be exhaustive, which means that it has a clear and precise purpose and the legal loophole which exists with Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive is closed.
- It should be proportionate and not go beyond what is necessary.” http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-05-30_Evaluation_Report_DRD_EN.pdf
-
mazsa
How to exit the euro – a proposal from 1997 http://moslereconomics.com/2011/05/16/how-to-exit-the-euro-a-proposal-from-1997/
-
mazsa
-
mazsa
“Hungary Is a Disgrace for Europe”:
[...] It’s strange, the more some countries profit from the European Union, the more prone they are to anti-European sentiments. The constitutional state has largely been abolished, future elections are effectively meaningless, the media are being whipped into line, as are theaters and museums and everything else that could shape the nation’s culture.
Barely a trace remains of pluralism, of variety, of the basic features of a free society. If you talk to people in Hungary about politics these days, you’re confronted with fear, like in the days of East Germany. In this state, Hungary no longer belongs in the EU. It is a disgrace for Europe. But Europe is saying nothing. [...]
-
mazsa
We are observing developments in Hungary with much attention and some worry. The media law adopted at the start of the year shows an attitude towards fundamental rights which – despite some amendments – is hardly compatible with European Union values. Our worries over the media law are made worse, not better, by today’s adoption of the constitution and its future implementation.
Werner Hoyer, Minister of State, Germany -
mazsa
[...] To track the risk of a new financial crisis, focus on whether the troubled euro zone economies are seeing bank runs and capital flight. Then comes a fundamental question about human nature, namely: Why do we so often postpone admitting that short-run patches simply aren’t going to work?
Tyler Cowen -
mazsa
WARNING- Euro Zone Automatic Fiscal Stabilizers Deactivated! “[...] Can all this be avoided? Yes, and the remedy is both simple, immediate, and would quickly lead to unprecedented global prosperity.
All the euro zone has to do is have the ECB write the check, and announce immediate and annual distributions of 10% of GDP to member nations to pay down their outstanding debts, and at the same time impose national deficit ceilings sufficiently high to promote desired levels of aggregate demand. And the penalty for non compliance would be the withdrawal of ECB support. This would remove credit concerns, without increasing government spending, so there would be no inflationary impact.
And all the rest of the world has to do is recognize that federal taxes function to regulate aggregate demand, and not to fund expenditures per se. And then set taxation and/or government spending at levels that sustain desired aggregate demand.
They need to know the question is not whether longer term the budget deficit is sustainable- as it’s always nominally sustainable- but instead worry about sustaining aggregate demand at desired levels, both long term and short term.
But, unfortunately, I see the odds of a catastrophic collapse in aggregate demand as far higher than the odds of an awakening to a global understanding of actual monetary operations.” http://moslereconomics.com/2011/03/30/warning-euro-zone-automatic-fiscal-stabilizers-deactivated/
-
mazsa
OPINION ON [...] THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF HUNGARY, EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION):
“[...] IV. The process of the adoption of a new Constitution
14. At the date of the visit of its delegation, the text of the draft Constitution had not yet been
released. The Commission was informed that the draft was being finalised and it was
envisaged to present it very soon to the majority’s parliamentary group (FIDESZ) and to
subsequently submit it to Parliament (by 15 March 2011). The adoption of the Constitution
was foreseen for 18 April 2011. – 5 – CDL-AD(2011)00115. The Venice Commission notes that, while initially associated to this process in the
framework of the Ad-hoc Committee for Drafting the Constitution, the opposition forces were
for several months not participating in the elaboration of the draft and that there was no longer
a dialogue between the majority and the opposition in this regard. It understands that the
opposition’s decision to withdraw from the process was in particular linked to the limitation of
the powers of the Constitutional Court with regard to the constitutionality of Acts and Bills on
state budget and taxes, adopted by the Hungarian parliament in November 2010.16. Moreover, concerns have been raised within the civil society over the lack of transparency
of the process and the inadequate consultation of the Hungarian society on the main
constitutional challenges to be addressed in this context. Since the draft was only submitted to
the Parliament on 14 March 2011, only limited public debate could take place on the changes
and novelties that the future Constitution might introduce.17. The tight schedule established for its adoption is also a serious source of concern and has
been raised by most of the interlocutors of the Commission.18. The Commission would like to recall that transparency, openness and inclusiveness,
adequate timeframe and conditions allowing pluralism of views and proper debate of
controversial issues, are key requirements of a democratic Constitution-making process.19. In its opinion, a wide and substantive debate involving the various political forces, nongovernment organisations and citizens associations, the academia and the media is an
important prerequisite for adopting a sustainable text, acceptable for the whole of the society
and in line with democratic standards. Too rigid time constraints should be avoided and the
calendar of the adoption of the new Constitution should follow the progress made in its debate. [...]” http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD(2011)001-e.pdf -
mazsa
“THE BASIC LAW OF HUNGARY (draft): GOD, BLESS HUNGARIANS! National Credo: [...]“:
http://www.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/BRNEDA224_004970.pdf
http://www.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/CONSTITUTION_in_English__DRAFT.pdf
-
mazsa
Common tax rules for companies operating in EU: “How it works
Corporate tax rates in the EU will not change. EU countries will continue to decide on their own corporate tax rates.
When calculating their taxes, companies would have a choice of using the different national systems or the single set of rules.
For example, a company may have operations in four EU countries – three with profits and one with a loss.
The company would be able to file one tax return instead of four. It would add up its profits, subtract its losses and use the common rules to calculate deductions and exemptions – arriving at a single taxable sum.
Each of the four countries would collect taxes on a portion of the taxable sum – based on their national rates. The portion would be calculated through a formula set out by the rules.
For the proposal to become law, the EU’s governments must agree to it after consultation with the European Parliament.” http://ec.europa.eu/news/economy/110318_1_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/common_tax_base/index_en.htm
-
mazsa
“[...] tax policy coordination.
Direct taxation remains a national competence. Pragmatic coordination of tax policies is a necessary element of a stronger economic policy coordination in the Euro area to support fiscal consolidation and economic growth. In this context, Member States commit to engage in structured discussions on tax policy issues, notably to ensure the exchange of best practices, avoidance of harmful practices and proposals to fight against fraud and tax evasion.
Developing a common corporate tax base could be a revenue neutral way forward to ensure consistency among national tax systems while respecting national tax strategies, and to contribute to fiscal sustainability and the competitiveness of European businesses.The Commission intends to present a legislative proposal on a common consolidated corporate tax base in the coming weeks. [...]”
“[...] The Heads of State or Government agree that the introduction of a financial transaction tax should be explored and developed further at the Euro area, EU and international levels. [...]”
CONCLUSIONS OF THE HEADS OF STATE OR GOVERNMENT OF THE EURO AREA
OF 11 MARCH 2011 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/119809.pdf -
mazsa
European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2011 on media law in Hungary
[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 HungaryThe 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;
2. Welcomes the Commission’s cooperation with the Hungarian authorities to bring Hungarian media law into conformity with EU Treaties and law, and the commencement of the amending process at national level;
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 continue the close monitoring and assessment of the conformity of Hungarian media law as amended in accordance with European legislation, particularly with the Charter on Fundamental Rights;
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 to review the media law further on the basis of the comments and proposals made by the European Parliament, the Commission, the OSCE and the Council of Europe Commissioner for 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 and, in the event that it is found to be incompatible with the letter or spirit of the Treaties or EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the ECHR, to repeal and not to apply the law or those elements thereof that are found to be incompatible;
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
-
mazsa
The EU has a flag no one salutes, an anthem no one sings, a president no one can name, a parliament (in Strasbourg) no one other than its members wants to have power (which must subtract from the powers of national legislatures), a capital (Brussels) of coagulated bureaucracy no one admires or controls, a currency that presupposes what neither does nor should nor soon will exist (a European central government), and rules of fiscal behavior that no member has been penalized for ignoring.
George Will -
mazsa
Censorship law, Hungary: Letter to Neelie Kroes, European Digital Agenda Commissioner
The HCLU [Hungarian Civil Liberties Union] wrote a letter to Neelie Kroes to express our grave concern about the amendment proposed to the Hungarian Press and Media Act and the Media Services and Mass Media Act by the Hungarian government which it has been said is supported by Commissioner Kroes.
The HCLU’s position is that Hungarian media laws constitute violations of European Directives in many details as well as that of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore some points of the proposed amendments are even more restrictive on freedom of the press than the earlier versions. http://tasz.hu/en/freedom-of-speech/letter-neelie-kroes-european-digital-agenda-commissioner
Letter to Neelie Kroes download: http://tasz.hu/files/tasz/imce/kroes_letter_0223.pdf
-
mazsa
Guardian: Orban was threatening the EU “Orbán made clear he would cause maximum embarrassment if Brussels insisted on meddling in his domestic policies. “If you mix up the two, obviously I am ready to fight … It won’t just be detrimental or damaging to Hungary alone but … to the EU as a whole,” he said in Strasbourg. It was an extraordinary statement: in effect, the EU’s standard-bearer was threatening the EU. [...]
The impact of Orbán’s behaviour on EU influence in the world is another worrying issue. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, has warned Europe’s collective authority in dealing with abusive regimes could be undermined. If Hungary’s flouting of EU standards goes unpunished, other EU states with questionable human rights and civil liberties practices may feel encouraged to persist. And what is EU candidate Turkey, often accused of curtailing media freedoms, to make of it all? [...]
The controversy has sparked an overdue discussion about maintaining common standards, Dennison said. “Until recently EU governments and the Commission have found it inappropriate to discuss domestic affairs at a European level, and certainly not in public … Instead they operate a gentlemen’s club …” she said in an ECFR analysis. But now, outrage over Orbán’s antics suggested “the long-standing civil society message [is] finally being heard: that breaches of the EU’s fundamental values, even in only one member state, are still a source of collective shame.” ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/20/hungary-eu-media-law
-
mazsa
Thank you Mr. Ambassador!
“Statement by Ambassador Kelly on Media Freedom in Hungary
United States Mission to the OSCE
As delivered by Ambassador Ian Kelly
to the Permanent Council, Vienna
January 20, 2011Statement on Media Freedom in Hungary
The United States wishes to register its concern over the new media law in Hungary. As a close ally and friend, we call on Hungary to uphold media freedom at home and throughout the region given its participation in the OSCE and as current President of the European Union. The passage of the new media law has raised significant international concern about the future of freedom of expression in Hungary. We note the visit to Budapest earlier this week of OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatovic and the concerns she previously outlined regarding media pluralism and possible risks to the financial, political, and editorial independence of media outlets under this new law. The United States cares deeply about freedom of expression, including press freedom, as a right that is central to democracy.
We therefore urge Hungarian officials to consider the concerns raised about the law, including those cited by Ms. Mijatovic, and ensure that freedom of expression, including media freedom, is fully respected in Hungary – a country long recognized as a leader in the fight against totalitarianism.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.”
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2011/January/20110120145809su2.721369e-02.html
[Via Karli Gyula Sámuel]
-
mazsa
US says South-Stream&Nabucco could merge http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/us-says-south-stream-and-nabucco-could-merge-news-501107
-
mazsa
Censorship law, European Union (Hungary): quotations & comments
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:
-
mazsa
PM Viktor Orban: “If the European Union says that Hungary’s new media law needs to be changed, the government will accept that and adhere to it. We are part of the EU, there are rules of the game.” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE7050DR20110106
-
mazsa
Rightwing populist Viktor Orban is the last person in Europe suited to hosting the EU rotating presidency [...] Hungary, now effectively under one-party rule, can be populist, isolationist and poor, or it can seek foreign investment. But it cannot do both. [...] Criticism from Europe may not frighten the prime minister, but the spotlight is now on his whole country.
The Guardian, Editorial -
mazsa
working on “Hungarian Citizens for European Referendum on Europen Bill of Rights” http://pad.telecomix.org/mitpadus
-
mazsa
Poll in Die Welt – 63%: Hungary is too dangerous, it has no place in the European Union any more
http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article11825311/Europa-darf-Ungarn-jetzt-nicht-isolieren.html
-
mazsa
The plans [the new media law of Hungary approved yesterday] clearly violate the spirit and the letter of EU treaties. It raises the question whether such a country is worthy of leading the EU. It’s a direct danger for democracy. The state will control opinion. Until now Lukashenko was considered to be the last dictator in Europe. When the law takes effect, that won’t be the case any more. / Die EU-Kommission muss unverzüglich gegen die Pläne vorgehen. Sie verstoßen gegen den Geist und die Worte der EU-Verträge. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob ein solches Land würdig ist, die EU zu führen.
Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn -
mazsa
”
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Mázsa Péter [...]
Date: 2010/12/21
Subject: Freedom of speech in Hungary as of 21st December 2010
To: jintao@blog.hu.com
Cc: Philip Barker [...],Dear Mr. Hu Jintao,
We are writing this letter to you not to address you in your role as
the Chinese Premiere, but to address you as if one private individual
were speaking to another.We would like to purchase your website, which can be found at the
following address http://blog.hu.com .Please allow us to explain this request”: http://amexrap.org/fal/dear-mr-hu-jintao
-
mazsa
Hungary effectively dismantled its pension reform
“Hungary effectively dismantled its pension reform. Hungarian lawmakers voted to roll back a 1997 reform of pensions on Monday, effectively allowing the government to seize up to 10 billion euros in private pension assets to cut the budget deficit while avoiding austerity measures.
Parliament passed the pension legislation with 250 votes for, 58 votes against and 43 abstentions. Orban’s ruling Fidesz party has a two-thirds parliamentary majority.
The legislation imposes stiff penalties on Hungarians who do not transfer their pension assets back into the state system by the end of January.
The government will sell the assets and use the income to cut debt, plug holes in the state pension fund and create room for tax cuts for households and small companies.
By plugging its budget shortfall with the pension funds and new taxes on banks and mostly foreign-owned businesses, Orban has promised to end years of austerity and bolstered the popularity of his right-of-centre Fidesz party in opinion polls.
But the strategy – which also includes regaining “financial sovereignty” by ending a 20 billion euro safety net deal with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund – has worried investors, caused losses in Hungarian assets, and prompted a downgrade by Moody’s ratings agency last week to Baa3, the lowest investment grade. [...]” http://www.euractiv.com/en/euro-finance/poland-hungary-odds-over-pension-reform-ahead-eu-summit-news-500565
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017782489105222.html
