The end of freedom_Školkay_NewMediaLit_Bratislava, Slovakia
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•275 views
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The end of freedom_Školkay_NewMediaLit_Bratislava, Slovakia
Similar to The end of freedom_Školkay_NewMediaLit_Bratislava, Slovakia (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The end of freedom_Školkay_NewMediaLit_Bratislava, Slovakia
- 1. 1 The End of Freedom on the Internet? Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship Dr. Andrej Školkay
- 2. Former SLO Prime Minister Janez Janša and „Finnish Slander“ A bribery in a 2006 arms deal to select Finnish contractor Patria for the supply of armoured vehicles for the Slovenian army:2 years, 2013-2014 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 3. Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship Ljubljana's district court ordered Dec. 13 2011 Finnish television YLE and its journalist Magnus Berglund to pay Jansa 15,000 euros ($19,800) in compensation for damages for libel from YLE over a report it made in 2008 implicating him in a bribery case. A former Slovenian police commissioner, Bojan Potocnik, who claimed in an interview with Berglund that Jansa had received bribes from a defense firm, was made to pay him 6,500 euros in damages. Both YLE and Potocnik will also have to publicly withdraw their claims on Slovenian and Finnish national television, the court decided. Former SLO Prime Minister Janša and „Finnish Slander“
- 4. While the court said that YLE reporter Magnus Berglund had sufficient grounds to believe that Janša took bribes, Berglund should have given Janša a chance to tell his side of the story. That said, the court did not take a stand on whether Janša was guilty of bribe-taking. BUT.......
- 5. 1. No Regulation 2. Self-Regulation 3. Co-Regulation (a special case ISPs) 4. Statutory Regulation 8 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 6. NO REGULATION 9 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 7. Between 2010 and 2013 alone, the CoE adopted 17 declarations and/or recommendations with respect to Internet-based media services 10 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 8. SELF-REGULATION 11 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 9. Individualised institutional self-regulation 12 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 11. no transnational body which would could serve as a self- regulatory body for journalists and the media at the international or even European level 14 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 12. the CoE 2001 continued in calling for self- regulation of `cyber-content,, but in 2011/2012 it recognised that this may be a problematic approach. 15 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 13. CO-REGULATION 16 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 14. Seems to be a preferred option for the CoE and also the EU, yet this option is more developed for ISPs than for NOMS in general. 17 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 15. STATUTORY REGULATION 18 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 16. it is questionable whether any EU-wide self- and co-regulation will meet criteria of representativeness of the parties involved, of added value for the general interest and swift and flexible regulation 19
- 17. 20 The ECtHR: the free expression principles apply differently to different types of media and that the nature and extent of permissible restrictions depends on the nature of the medium. In particular, “the potential impact of the medium concerned is an important factor” 20 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 18. the case Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine 21 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 19. In the EU:self-regulation or co-regulation will not be applicable where fundamental rights or important political options are at stake or in situations where the rules must be applied in a uniform fashion in all MS 22 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 20. Perrin v. the United Kingdom 23 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 21. 24 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship DELFI AS v. ESTONIA
- 22. Joined Cases C 509/09 and C‑ ‑ 161/10 25 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 23. 26 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship The B children (SK-UK Case, 2012-2013)
- 25. 28 The B children (SK-UK Case, 2012-2013) Message: URGENT IMPORTANT Ifyou disobey this order you may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison or be fined or have your assets seized. You should read the order carefully. You are advised to consult a solicitor as soon as possible. You have the right to ask the Court to vary or discharge the order. We would be most grateful if, as partof this process, you could immediately alert all media in Slovakia or Slovakian media known to you in London of the existence of this order. requesting the assistance of the Slovak State in preventing any breach of this order. Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 26. 29 . REPORTING RESTRICTING ORDER FRIDAY 9TH NOVEMBER 2OI2 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1. Duration Subject to arly different order being made in the meantime, this order shall have effect until 6 May 2013 or until they earlier cease to be subject to the jurisdiction of this court. 2. Who is bound This Order binds all persons and all companies …. who know' that the Order has been made. 3. Publishing rectrictions This Order prohibits the publishing or broadcasting in any newspaper, magazine, public computer network, intenet website, sound or television broadcast or cable or satellite programme service the name and curent or future address of:- Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
- 27. NOMS are becoming subject to more frequent and more precise statutory regulation, but this regulation can be expected to be graduated (as suggested by CoE) and less strict (in line with ECtHR rulings) than that for the traditional media 30 Leonardo da Vinci Project 2012-2014: New Media Literacy for Media Professionals Partners: SKAMBA (SK), Media21Foundation (BG), FOPSIM (MT) and Videovest (RO). This presentation was prepared by SKAMBA and is free to use under condition of acknowledging authorship
Editor's Notes
- UNESCO has not dealt much with this issue with the position of NOMS being addressed in rather more detail by a special UN rapporteur, while discussion of NOMS by the OSCE has been rather contradictory. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) deals with online regulation exclusively from the point of view of a consumer or business. the regulatory advices of ITU seem to be quite extensive but rather general. As far as World Trade Organisation (WTO) is concerned, one can agree with William J. Drake from University of Zurich, who said in late 2013 that “in the context of internet governance, one hears very little discussion of the WTO.”(date accessed January 14, 2014). Yet it should be duly noted that we have noticed 1,270 findings on WTO webpage with respect to 妬nternet regulation�and 1,160 finding on 登nline regulation�in January 2014. However, there was no mention of 登nline regulation�and only three mention of 的nternet regulation�when searched for exact phrases on WTO website!
- no generally agreed upon scientific or EU-wide legal definition of NMS or networked media in general in late 2011 the CoE developed six criteria, supplemented by a set of indicators, designed to assist policy makers in identifying whether a new communication service amounts to a media service or whether it provides only intermediary or auxiliary activities for media services. NOMS should: a) Intend to act as media services; b) Pursue those purposes and underlying objectives that characterize the media; c) Be subject to editorial control; d) Subscribe to professional standards; e) Seek outreach and to disseminate their services; f) Act in line with public expectations.
- Jansa, who headed Slovenia's government between 2004 and 2008, sued Finnish broadcaster YLE and Berglund in 2008 for libel, demanding 1.5 million euros in compensation for an investigative report broadcast Sept. 1, 2008, weeks ahead of Slovenian parliamentary elections. In it, Berglund alleged that several high-ranking Slovenian officials, including Jansa, had taken bribes in exchange for a 278 million euro contract to acquire armored vehicles from Finnish defense firm Patria. The scandal played a major role ahead of the 2008 elections, which resulted in a victory for the center-left Social Democrats over Jansa's Slovenian Democratic Party. On Dec. 13, the Ljubljana court ruled that the information contained in the YLE report was insufficient to corroborate the bribe allegations and sustained Jansa's libel claims. Slovenian prosecutors launched a separate trial against Jansa and four others in September 2010 over the same bribery claims, with additional evidence. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20111213/DEFSECT02/112130313/Former-Slovenia-PM-Wins-Libel-Claim-Patria-Case
- http://yle.fi/uutiset/former_slovenian_pm_wins_libel_suit_against_yle/5467847 In the autumn of 2008, YLE’s investigative journalism TV programme MOT aired an episode in which it reported that the Finnish defence contractor Patria had allegedly paid bribes totalling 21 million euros to officials in the Slovenian Defence Ministry as well as to then-premier Janša.
- http://www.rfom15.org/
- http://laurelpapworth.com/enterprise-list-of-40-social-media-staff-guidelines/ Disciplining social media: An analysis of social media policies in 26 Swedish municipalities Klang, Mathias, AND Nolin, Jan. "Disciplining social media: An analysis of social media policies in 26 Swedish municipalities" First Monday [Online], Volume 16 Number 8 (13 July 2011)
- Managing staff who participate in social networks. This list also includes policies called; Staff blogging policies, enterprise social network guidelines, Employee Blogging Policies, Staff engagement in online communities, and so on. I’ve done a few press (radio, print) interviews this week re: Telstra so I thought I should have another look at how Enterprise, Government, Corporates, Not for Profits are handling the fact that their staff are members of social networks too. I once had to step in to calm down a forum that was off the charts with negativity and general unpleasant comments. To be even heard, I started to IP and MAC address ban anyone who posted under secondary IDs for the purpose of trolling (making up a temporary persona who’s only purpose is to create negative comments). I shouldn’t have been surprised – victim number one was the entire Customer Service department. Yep, they had been using their CSR PCs to create secondary accounts to attack members – customers – who were criticising them on their official, primary, Customer Service profiles. No-one got reinstated until we had “the talk”. Kinda cool that companies are now posting internal policies publicly. Not surprising – it goes a long way to protect the company from fallout if/when staff do ignore the social media guidelines in place.
- http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-104685#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-104685%22]} 64. Nevertheless, having regard to the role the Internet plays in the context of professional media activities (see paragraphs 29-32 above) and its importance for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression generally (see Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), no. 3002/03 and 23676/03, § 27, 10 March 2009), the Court considers that the absence of a sufficient legal framework at the domestic level allowing journalists to use information obtained from the Internet without fear of incurring sanctions seriously hinders the exercise of the vital function of the press as a “public watchdog” (see, mutatis mutandis, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216). In the Court’s view, the complete exclusion of such information from the field of application of the legislative guarantees of journalists’ freedom may itself give rise to an unjustified interference with press freedom under Article 10 of the Convention. 65. The Court further observes that under Ukrainian law journalists cannot be required to pay compensation in defamation cases if they did not disseminate the untrue information intentionally, acted in good faith and verified the information, or if the injured party failed to use the available possibilities to settle the dispute before going to court (see paragraph 26 above). In the domestic proceedings, the applicants explicitly raised the defence of qualified privilege under the relevant legal provision. In particular, they argued that they had not acted with malicious intent to defame the claimant by publishing the material in question and that the public had an interest in receiving the information. Furthermore, they argued that by reproducing the material previously published on the Internet, their intention had been to promote debate and discussion on political matters of significant public interest. They also argued that the claimant had not taken any steps to settle the dispute with them despite the fact that in the same publication they had invited any person concerned to comment. Their plea was entirely ignored by the courts, however. 66. The Court therefore finds that, given the lack of adequate safeguards in the domestic law for journalists using information obtained from the Internet, the applicants could not foresee to the appropriate degree the consequences which the impugned publication might entail. This enables the Court to conclude that the requirement of lawfulness contained in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention was not met. 67. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the parties’ remaining submissions concerning this provision or to examine the proportionality of the interference at issue. 68. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as regards this aspect of the case. . Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet 29. At their 1010th meeting on 7 November 2007 the Ministers’ Deputies considered essential aspects of the use of new information and communication technologies and services, in particular the Internet, in the context of protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. They acknowledged the increasingly important role the Internet was playing in providing diverse sources of information to the public and people’s significant reliance on the Internet as a tool for communication. 30. It was noted however that the Internet could, on the one hand, significantly enhance the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the right to freedom of expression, while, on the other hand, the Internet might adversely affect other rights, freedoms and values, such as the respect for private life and secrecy of correspondence and for the dignity of human beings. 31. The Ministers’ Deputies adopted recommendations to the Council of Europe’s member states with regard to the governance of the Internet. These included recommendation to elaborate a clear legal framework delineating the boundaries of the roles and responsibilities of all key stakeholders in the field of new information and communication technologies and to encourage the private sector to develop open and transparent self- and co-regulation on the basis of which key actors in this field could be held accountable. B. Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, adopted on 21 December 2005 32. The growing importance of the Internet as a vehicle for facilitating in practice the free flow of information and ideas was also recognised in the Joint Declaration issued by Mr A. Ligabo, Mr M. Haraszti and Mr E. Bertoni. They stressed the need for strict application of international guarantees of freedom of expression to the Internet. In that context, it was stated that no one should be liable for content on the Internet of which they were not the author, unless they had either adopted that content as their own or refused to obey a court order to remove that content.
- http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=002-3684#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-3684%22]}The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment for publishing a free preview page on a website which contained scenes of coprophilia, coprophagia and homosexual fellation. A police officer had previously accessed this page in the course of his duties, which led to the arrest of the applicant. The applicant stated in his interviews with the police that the internet site viewed by the officer was operated and controlled by a company based in the United States of America of which he was a majority shareholder. The applicant’s conviction fell under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, on grounds of having published an obscene article. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal claiming that his conviction had breached Article 10. It found that the 1959 Act was sufficiently precise for the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression to be considered as having been prescribed by law. It also found the interference proportional and justified. Inadmissible under Article 10: The applicant’s conviction and sentence for publishing an obscene article had constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. As to whether the interference had been prescribed by law, the applicant maintained that the 1959 Act was not sufficiently foreseeable because the major steps towards publication had taken place in the United States, where the 1959 Act did not apply. However, the applicant was a resident of the United Kingdom and could not therefore argue that the laws of the United Kingdom were not reasonably accessible to him. Moreover, concerning the precision of the amended 1959 Act, the Act made it clear that it applied to the transmission of data that was stored electronically, and also clarified the definition of what material was “obscene”. Hence, the impugned interference was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 10(2). It was not disputed that the legitimate aim of the interference had been to protect the morals and/or the rights of others. On the question of proportionality, the fact that the dissemination of the images in question may have been legal in other States, such as the United States, did not mean that in proscribing such dissemination within its own territory the respondent State had exceeded its margin of appreciation. Likewise, the fact that there were other means to protect against the harm of such material (such as parental control software packages, making the accessing of the sites illegal and requiring Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to block access) did not render it disproportionate for a Government to resort to criminal prosecution, particularly when other measures had not been shown to be more effective. As to the applicant’s further argument that websites were rarely accessed by accident and normally had to be sought out by the user, the web page in respect of which the applicant was convicted was freely available to anyone surfing the internet and could be sought out by young persons whom the national authorities were trying to protect. It would have been possible for the applicant to have avoided harm by ensuring that none of the photographs were available on the free preview page. In conclusion, the applicant’s criminal conviction could be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of morals and/or the rights of others. The length of the sentence imposed had not been disproportionate either: manifestly ill-founded.
- http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-126635#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-126635%22]} Background of the case 7. The applicant company is the owner of Delfi, an Internet news portal that publishes up to 330 news articles a day. Delfi is one of the largest news portals on the Internet in Estonia. It publishes news in Estonian and Russian in Estonia and also operates in Latvia and Lithuania. 8. At the material time, at the end of the body of the news articles there were the words “add your comment” and fields for comments, the commenter’s name and his or her email address (optional). Below these fields there were buttons “publish the comment” and “read comments”. The part for reading comments left by others was a separate area which could be accessed by clicking on the “read comments” button. The comments were uploaded automatically and were, as such, not edited or moderated by the applicant company. The articles received about 10,000 readers’ comments daily, the majority posted under pseudonyms. 9. Nevertheless, there was a system of notify-and-take-down in place: any reader could mark a comment as leim (an Estonian word for an insulting or mocking message or a message inciting hatred on the Internet) and the comment was removed expeditiously. Furthermore, there was a system of automatic deletion of comments that included certain stems of obscene words. In addition, a victim of a defamatory comment could directly notify the applicant company, in which case the comment was removed immediately. 10. The applicant company had made efforts to advise users that the comments were not its opinion and that the authors of comments were responsible for their content. On Delfi’s Internet site there were “Rules of comment” which included the following: “The Delfi message board is a technical medium allowing users to publish comments. Delfi does not edit comments. An author of a comment is liable for his/her comment. It is worth noting that there have been cases in the Estonian courts where authors have been punished for the contents of a comment ... Delfi prohibits comments the content of which does not comply with good practice. These are comments that: - contain threats; - contain insults; - incite hostility and violence; - incite illegal activities ...
- JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 25 October 2011 (*) (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive 2000/31/EC – Publication of information on the internet – Adverse effect on personality rights – Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur – Law applicable to information society services) In Joined Cases C‑509/09 and C‑161/10, REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) (C‑509/09) and the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) (C‑161/10), made by decisions of 10 November 2009 and 29 March 2010, received at the Court, respectively, on 9 December 2009 and 6 April 2010, in the proceedings eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Limited On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on an internet website, the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based. That person may also, instead of an action for liability in respect of all the damage caused, bring his action before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible. Those courts have jurisdiction only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised. 2. Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), must be interpreted as not requiring transposition in the form of a specific conflict-of-laws rule. Nevertheless, in relation to the coordinated field, Member States must ensure that, subject to the derogations authorised in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31, the provider of an electronic commerce service is not made subject to stricter requirements than those provided for by the substantive law applicable in the Member State in which that service provider is established.
- Slovakia, UK: “Child Snatching” or “Child Protection”? Posted 18 October 2012 23:28 GMT On September 18, about 150 people (or, according to another source [en], more than 400 people) protested [sk, images] in front of the UK Embassy in Bratislava. They were holding banners that said, “Kids to Mom,” “Kids are not business,” and “Britain thief of children.” It all began this past summer, when the Slovak TV channel JOJ broadcasted a report about Miroslav Goroľa and Veronika Čonková, an unmarried Roma couple from Slovakia. They took four of their nine children and moved to Britain “to search for work.” Čonková was pregnant at the time of the move and soon gave birth to the couple's next child. When they asked the British authorities for social support, all the five children were taken away from them. From the netizens’ intolerant comments to this SME article [sk], it is clear that this Roma couple's case was not the reason for the protest in front of the UK Embassy.