The Constitutional Council validates the Macronist law which authorizes the withdrawal within the hour of content deemed “terrorist”

by time news

« I want the Republic to have two names: that it be called Liberty, and that it be called public thing », liked to imagine Victor Hugo. Saturday August 13, by validating the law proposed by the macronists on the withdrawal of online content deemed “terrorist”, a malleable term and subject to interpretations, the Constitutional Council once again excluded France from the republican ideal advocated by the illustrious French writer.

Proposed by LREM and adopted at the end of July, the law which plans to compel web publishers and hosts, social networks in the lead, to withdraw within the hour and without the intervention of justice content on the Web labeled “terrorists”, obtained the green light from the Constitutional Council. The body chaired by Laurent Fabius, whose son Laurent Fabius is an associate director at the consulting firm McKinsey, has become famous since the Covid-19 crisis for its propensity to endorse the restrictions on freedom adopted by the government, despite lack of scientific evidence to support its decisions.

See also: The Constitutional Council bluntly approves the introduction of the vaccination pass

Seized by deputies from La France insoumise on this text which adapts a European regulation and partly takes up one of the key provisions of the Avia law, widely challenged by the legal body in July 2020, the body considers that ” the contested provisions do not violate the freedom of expression and communication » et « therefore considers them to be in conformity with the Constitution “. In their appeal, the Insoumis pointed out that this law constituted ” a manifest violation of the freedom of expression and communication guaranteed by article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 ».

As our journalist Wolf Wagner reported, this law voted by Parliament will allow the authorities to impose within the hour and without the intervention of justice the censorship of any content published on the Internet as soon as it is accused of “terrorist”, a term that leaves the door open to a multitude of possible interpretations ».

Recalling that we had during the Covid-19 crisis “ quickly switched to a discourse where the amalgam was allowed between antivax opponents and the term terrorist “, he wonders : “ Who can say today what the meaning of the word “terrorism” will be in two years? […] How can we refrain from imagining that if we had to relive a situation close to that encountered during the years 2020 and 2021, with a power as vertical as it is strict, certain opponents, more or less violent and hostile to politics of the government, would not again be qualified as terrorists by an ever larger part of the intelligentsia? »

See also: Law against “terrorist” content online, moving towards general censorship within the EU?

In the event of non-compliance, one year’s imprisonment and a fine of 250,000 euros

As part of the sanction mechanism provided for by this law, a hosting service provider who refuses to remove any of this so-called “terrorist” content incurs one year’s imprisonment and a fine of 250,000 euros. Digital platforms may also be subject to a fine of up to 4% of their turnover.

The Constitutional Council argues that terrorist content ” constitute abuses of the freedom of expression and communication which seriously undermine public order and the rights of third parties “. In addition, he recalls that the withdrawal injunction must ” include not only the reference to the type of content concerned, but also a sufficiently detailed motivation ».

The Central Office for the Fight against Crime linked to Information and Communication Technologies (OCLCTIC), a service of the judicial police, was mandated to take these decisions on the injunction to withdraw, while the Arcom ( Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication) can also recommend the cancellation of a withdrawal injunction, if it considers it unfounded, or even urgently refer to administrative justice. Thereby, ” the determination of the terrorist nature of the content in question is not left to the sole discretion of the administrative authority “, notes the Council.

Finally, the right for Web hosts and publishers to challenge a withdrawal injunction with a decision from the administrative court within 72 hours, and within one month in the event of an appeal, constitutes, for the members of the Council, ” promptly ».

You may also like

Leave a Comment