The French law that allows disconnecting Internet-users has crashed against the Constitutional Court today at 18.00. The highest authority on constitutional law condemned late this evening the controversial legislation passed a month ago by the parliament on the grounds that “internet is a component of freedom of expression and consumption” in the Declaration of Human Rights, and that justice is the only who can punish illegal downloads -not an Administrative authority.
The European Parliament provided the same evidence, by approving an amendment that rejected an administrative authority who could decide, as provided by law now condemned, to punish users. The text, approved with the objections of the Socialists, allowed an administrative authority so called Hadopi, order off recidivists for a period ranging from three months to one year.
It’s been a great blow to president Sarkozy. The Constitutional Court verdict means a severe blow to Nicolas Sarkozy, who defend the project tooth and nail to make it a personal matter. The law also has earned the support of a majority of artists.
The Government, which must comply with the ruling, argues that when establishing an administrative authority its target was not to overburden the courts. Immediately this evening, the French minister of culture, Mrs Christine Albanel, has just reiterated her desire to push the project even if the Government has to reform a so basic issue as the way to apply the sanction.
In short, this is the first time in many years, that the highest court setbacks so harshly the government in France. Specifically, the high court has made clear that the government has not respected the right to three fundamental principles: the trias politica separation of powers, the presumption of innocence and the freedom of internet access. It seems that Mr Sarkozy’s Government forgot that these are -and still remain- general principles of law.
And whether some like it or not, Montesquieu’s tripartite system is the model for the governance of democratic states.
Related Posts:
· Hadopi Law to Constitutional Court
· European Parliament Gives Support to Internet Freedom
28 January 2010 at 17:52
[...] and Protection of the (Copy) Rights on Internet), replacing a previous agency, the ARMT. Anyhoo, despite howls of protest, the French government unveiled a web police force – also known as Hadopi – and introduced them [...]
24 June 2009 at 17:25
I’m not french, but this is definitely good news. Congratulations on someone having some sense over there.
24 June 2009 at 16:46
Bon voyage Madame le ministre….
Lose yourself and take a one-way ticket with no return!
24 June 2009 at 16:04
The French minister of Culture, Mrs Alabnel leaves by service entrance…
Well this is a boon for all mankind.
24 June 2009 at 16:45
Jesus Christ, Justice’s done
23 June 2009 at 22:25
Veronica and Bob clearly do not understand what is meant by Internet being a “fundamental human right” in the sense of this judgement. It does NOT mean that anyone is entitled to get Internet access for free. What it DOES mean is that the government cannot take away people’s Internet connections, which they have legally paid for, on a whim — only a court can decide whether being deprived of one’s Internet access is an appropriate punishment. In other words, the judgement basically says that due proces and the rule of law apply to the Internet, in the same way as it does to anything else.
Alex, London
23 June 2009 at 21:59
human rights cover a lot of ground these days but FUNDAMENTAL rights…?
basic food, water, humane treatment….. oh yeah and internet now!
Steve, Redditch UK
23 June 2009 at 20:28
Internet access is usually a service provided by a corporation which you can use provided you abide by the terms of service/use. If you violate that contract (like hosting copyrighted material, as much as I hate to say it) it should be that ISP’s right to disable your service. No one has a right to a product/service because it exists.
Joe, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
23 June 2009 at 19:58
It’s a human right, now? Oh, so that’s why the majority of the population of the world DON’T HAVE IT. It’s also everyone before its invention DIDN’T HAVE IT.
Look, I love my internet. It allows me to communicate with others without inducing my anti-social instincts. But I really wouldn’t go so far as to call it one of my fundamental human rights. I mean, it’s not as if being deprived of it will do as much damage as deprevation of food or water or shelter, right?
Angharad, Twikenham, UK
23 June 2009 at 18:40
said: ‘We will have this law passed, despite the decision of the Constitutional council, and set up courts around the country to enforce it.’
Ahh, there you go, I knew the same old Communist Soviet attitude would be dictating from within somewhere. Can’t pass the rule, so reword to force it through, aint the EU and it’s core tyrants wonderful democratics?
Beth Kay, Manchester UK
23 June 2009 at 00:03
Beth, the french gov is right-wing. Not so much soviet. seems more like the odd conservative attitude… but you’re right, we’re in EU. And the european parliament already ruled out this law. Nonetheless, french gov decided that the eu parliament decision didn’t apply on this matter. How ironic…
JR
23 June 2009 at 17:02
For people that follow these things, this is actually a very important ruling.
TV, film and record companies are not willing to change their model of business to counter digital copying – they will never succeed in trying to fine people or cut off their internet access. Never.
They need to move with the times and start offering attractive ways of persuading people against copying.
Like reducing the price of blu-rays, dvds, cds and video games.
Although it sounds silly that internet access should be a human right the point Le Monde makes is very very valid.
23 June 2009 at 13:38
Apparently most non techies don’t realize the reality of something called the technical divide. Those with internet access will move ahead by leaps and bounds in society compared to those who do not have this access, and as we move into the region of terrabytes a high speed connection will be the only way to access the majority of data. How tiresome it is to hear sarcasm dripping from the tongues of those who are either to ignorant to know better or too rich to care. Hooray for France it’s beginning to look like the US and the UK are more willing to give up on the idea that all men are created equal in favor of corporate greed.
23 June 2009 at 10:44
Voting and freedom of choice clearly arent human rights though.
Graham, Nottingham, UK
23 June 2009 at 08:10
This was a ridiculous law anyway, how would it be fair to cut off someones Internet connection, potentially blocking access to their bank accounts, utility bills, etc. when they could be entirely innocent and any law that has been broken could have been broken by someone else in the house (or even a neighbour hacking thier WIFI).
Steve Walker, Manchester, UK
23 June 2009 at 07:17
Isn’t it typical of the priorities of government to put their efforts into protecting the interests of super rich popstars and greedy music companies?
John, Falmouth, UK
22 June 2009 at 18:01
the french will do what they want, they are a country with spirit who take no notice of laws they don’t agree with. They smoke inside public buildings, they don’t use measures for spirits, they are free agents. Only in the Uk to people slavishly follow what government tell them. They will get the internet they want. Unlike the uk, where 3 million homes can’t even get a connection due to government believing the current obsolete infrastructure can deliver a service when in fact it can’t. This is why they are blaming illegal downloads and throttling all the users to conserve bandwidth, and blaming it on copyright. pah poo bunkum. Light the fibre in every country, and see the innovation from your people spring from the grassroots. Piracy is just a smokescreen.
22 June 2009 at 15:18
I am glad the french have sorted it out. Here we use WIFI which iis run by Osmozis who take our money but the service is very poor. Maybe they should be hauled into court over it
22 June 2009 at 14:58
“France’s most senior lawmakers described the Internet as having become ‘an essential tool for the liberty of communication and expression’.”
I couldn’t agree more with these French senior law makers: It is the greatest invention in the evolution of human communication and we must never let the politicians take it away from us or succeed in controlling it. The Internet enables us to access vast amounts of information on every subject imaginable which otherwise would be left to the state institutions and media moguls to use, distort and manipulate for their own agendas or for those of their masters, the bankers. The Internet has brought about a new world consciousness and its power far surpasses that of political parties, international bankers and media moguls whose primary goals are to mis-inform, subjugate, exploit and manipulate populations one way or another. We must never let politicians and Big Brother take this away from us.
Pat
21 June 2009 at 23:32
Access to the internet a fundamental human right? Am I the only one who is slowly losing the will to live?
Veronica, Manchester
21 June 2009 at 22:12
Why are we still associating with these clowns. They are helping to wrecki the country I love
Susan, Colorado/Texas USA
21 June 2009 at 21:36
In tech-savvy Estonia the Internet has been a part of their declared fundamental human right for many years now. It’s time for the rest of Europe to catch up!
Mel, London
21 June 2009 at 19:07
‘Under section nine of the Declaration of 1789, every man is presumed innocent until they have been proven guilty.’
crickey i wish we had this right here
Kevin Quilter, Leicester UK
21 June 2009 at 21:33
No it’s not. It’s a convenience and fun, but we can live without it.
21 June 2009 at 01:42
Wow gotta love them French…..
van Bel, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria,
21 June 2009 at 01:32
As someone explained below, it isn’t internet access which is a human right.
It is the fact that you pay for a service, and it has to be provided, unless a judge rules otherwise. What uk papers don’t stress out enough is:
- only a justice decision can switch your internet connection, not an administration decision.
- The administration could disconnect you and consider you guilty before any hearing.
21 June 2009 at 00:48
It’s a human right, now? Oh, so that’s why the majority of the population of the world DON’T HAVE IT. It’s also everyone before its invention DIDN’T HAVE IT.
Look, I love my internet. It allows me to communicate with others without inducing my anti-social instincts. But I really wouldn’t go so far as to call it one of my fundamental human rights. I mean, it’s not as if being deprived of it will do as much damage as deprevation of food or water or shelter, right?
16 June 2009 at 11:46
This law is wonderful example of an institutional application’s of Peter’s corollary …
“Over time, any position will be filled by an incompetent unable to take responsibility”
Vicky
15 June 2009 at 19:29
Having been to France and Italy and having knowing people who live there I can tell you Berlusconi and Sarkozy are not liked at all. Obama has a much higher approval than them in both of their own countries.
14 June 2009 at 12:43
A small man with a small mind.
What is it with those French people? For some reason or the other they seem to believe they are superior to everyone else. Who told them that?
14 June 2009 at 12:08
Hadopi ou bien c’est incongru, ou bien c’est le retour d’ascenseur pour services rendus à ses copains
13 June 2009 at 23:38
I just read that the singer of BEE GEEs was against piracy! I would say “Don’t worry cause of nobody downloads you anymore!” In fact we should protect artists but also we must define who is an artist!
13 June 2009 at 19:31
Here you are a quite interesting link. In French. Enjoy
http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/laurent-chemla/110609/hadopi-assez-revenons-sur-terre-lettre-ouverte-aux-artistes
Albanel go tanning on the beach, give us a break!
Hervé
13 June 2009 at 11:45
Everybody knows it is illegal to download Office, Photoshop, the last lady Gaga album the 39 seasons of Startrck.
Everybody does.
I do not care much if they vote yes or no.
When 30 millions peoples do not respect a law, there is no law.
It will be through Linux, bit torrent or whatever technical bias.
And it will become a national sport.
13 June 2009 at 12:23
Philippe, certainly, it’s true that a law that is ignored is somewhat, a bad law, but it’s worrying that it can even be passed in the first place.
13 June 2009 at 10:01
Very good decision. Poor artists and singers who will earn only 4 euros less. With all the gifts that the government has done they will not even cry. Say that the unemployed!
Barthelemy
13 June 2009 at 00:41
I feel really happy for your country and for the whole humanity. When things like this happen in modern times it shows that something is completely wrong with the world. It was even claimed here in Sweden by the pirate party that hadopi would force people to install some supervising software on their computers. I assume that is just a joke, even if we were playing the weird eXistenZ it sounds just too absurd. But there are other people writing about this so even such an insane thing could be true…
http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/hadopi-spyware-provisions-and-the-tf1-sacking/ [...]
Djiso Hefuheu
13 June 2009 at 00:39
the music industry has just to found a new market, and they sure as hell know how to work it.. when it comes to money, moral, and even law is not to much to break.
Marcus
13 June 2009 at 00:32
Obviously the law became unenforceable. The High Authority can still send emails, of course, but it will be impossible to assign 180,000 legal presumed innocent per year. Unless to set up a massive hiring, creating new courts, or judges … and given the budget deficit, I do not think it will be a government priority, even to meet President’s friends wishes. “Prima facie” case
Paul Colmes, Loughton, Essex, UK
13 June 2009 at 00:08
Et le lustreur de pompes, Mr.Lefebvre qui dit : “cette loi on la veut et on l’aura” ! Ce gouvernement ressemble vraiment à une équipe de moulins à vent capricieux !
Arnaud, (92)
12 June 2009 at 23:04
As it usual happens in Sarkozyland: much ado about nothing… a smoker screen, laws pound out in a rush, done for a tour, a magic trick and… nothing
and why not changing the minister, going her up in smoke.
So Ms. Albanel has sufficient has cost too much to taxpayers, who’s the next to be ate by the prince?
Thierry de Thomasson
12 June 2009 at 22:37
France has always been Schyzophenic about freedom;)
So governments are allowed to make as much laws they want and peolpe to not follow strictly the rules
About this one anyway , Eurpoe has already say no, and most peole know tha it is impossible to put it in application, so a lot of people just dont care.
Philippe
13 June 2009 at 10:22
That’s right Philippe. As we say in French “retour à la case départ” (back to square one) for Mrs Albanel band (and the remaining muppets)!
But it is usual here in France that the government tries to get control over what´s going on out there. What is more, if it deals with youngers -as it is now. This admin fears a lot of youth, (look below on ‘Myths (and old habits) die hard’)
Have a nice day JR
13 June 2009 at 10:46
People will not follow the rule anyway.
a/ ther s no way to survey 20 millions of computers.
b/ they will erase sthe spy, or use linux – mandriva is going to be really popular if necessary .
C: if they really try to apply all this, they will get so much un popularity that they will let die the whole thing.
Everybody know it. The governement knows it. people in France also.
Philippe
13 June 2009 at 11:10
well, the European Parliament has said “no” three times, but the national governments keep pushing back: the whole thing is still in conciliation. It’s not over yet, I fear….
12 June 2009 at 22:34
Thanks for the interesting backgound information.
12 June 2009 at 21:24
France is THE biggest open-source users
http://www.redhat.com/about/where-is-open-source/activity/
You reviewed it quite well…
But you neglected to mention that there is a strong french internet activists, gathering all over france, doing flash mobs, informing people of the danger of such extremist law…
I live in this country (what a shame)
11 June 2009 at 16:09
Beat in the Parliament, disallowed by the European Parliament, banished by the Constitutional Court and denounced by thousands of Internet users… it is clear that, apart Mrs Albanel, nobody wants the Hadopi law
Kravetz, Renville, Tx
11 June 2009 at 12:10
The government wanted to move in force and to impose this law against the vast majority of users, mostly opposed to the law, and even against the advice of some highlighted UMP members
Paul Vienne, Marcq-en-Baroeul (59)
11 June 2009 at 10:54
Good questions, good answers, good analysis.
DADVSI and HADOPI laws are not accepted among the internet community, and have led to huge online action groups, petitions, and political pressure. And at last but not least, the movement have been able to change or block such laws. Not mainly these judges (sorry but I disagree).
The notable online activism related to copyright and anti-pirating laws, has to be still on the alert.
Jerome Colson, Bloemfontein, South Africa
12 June 2009 at 21:48
Hadopi law constituted an incredible attack on Freedom of expression and Privacy. It is fascinating to see how a law giving the state an easy way to invade people’s every digital thought is being pushed through at all costs
11 June 2009 at 09:03
Let’s be clear: partial censorship of this law by the Constitutional Court is great news for democracy at a time when French leaders seem committed to limit our freedoms on the Internet.
11 June 2009 at 07:37
Finally, the Constitutional Council is blocking the will of Sarkozy.
So far we have witnessed helplessly the accelerated demolition of what was the originality and strength of French society by the will of one man illegally confiscating all powers.
Since then, we are numerous to denounce the authoritarian drift of Sarkozy. Do not deny our pleasure now.
But are we witnessing a real awareness or is it rather just the last burst against democracy?
Sarkozy moved too far and too visibly knocking parliamentarians, justice and common sense in order to further enrich his friends’ flattering interests and serve the narrow interests of a group of artists and corporations unable to adapt to a new century?
Daniel R