VZCZCXRO9921
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV
DE RUEHFR #1074/01 0790800
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 200800Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5770
INFO RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEAFCC/FCC WASHDC
RUEAWJA/DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 001074 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE EB/CIP AND EUR/WE 
PLEASE PASS TO USTR JMCHALE AND KSCHAGRIN 
FCC FOR TWEISLER 
COMMERCE FOR NTIA 
JUSTICE FOR KWILLNER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECPS ETRD FR
SUBJECT:  INTERNET RIGHTS FORUM DISCUSSES PROPOSED INTERNET 
REGULATION 
 
Ref: A) Larrea-Dwyer 3/7 e-mail, B) Sullivan-Larrea March 12 e-mail 
 
Not for Internet distribution 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
1 . (SBU) France's Internet Rights Forum General Manager Isabelle 
Falque-Pierrotin told us that a draft GOF decree that would create a 
National Commission on Online Professional Ethics was not proceeding 
forward.  Originally envisioned as a way to protect children against 
sensitive online content, the draft decree was vaguely worded and 
raised concerns that it might have a large role in policing the 
Internet.  Additionally, Falque-Pierrotin said that a new law that 
criminalizes the filming of violent crimes and posting such content 
on the internet would not create new liability either for sites that 
host such content or for internet service providers.  End summary. 
 
 
An Ethics Commission to regulate the Internet? Not yet 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶2. (SBU)  On March 14, econoff met with Internet Rights Forum 
General Manager Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin to discuss a draft decree 
that would create an ethics commission to oversee Internet content 
(ref A).  Falque-Pierrotin said that the proposal for a 
Government-controlled ethics commission has been in the works for 
months but only surfaced recently as copies of the draft decree were 
leaked to the press and posted on the web.  Originally envisaged as 
a way to protect children and classify content by age group, the 
proposal was vaguely worded and raised concerns that it might have a 
large role in policing the Internet.  These concerns were compounded 
by the Government's decision to establish the commission by decree, 
which does not require Parliamentary approval.  Falque-Pierrotin 
told us that the government project, which had originally received 
much support form both the President and the Prime Minister, 
appeared to have been shelved to avoid a public debate in the run up 
to the April Presidential elections. 
 
¶3. (SBU) This proposal is not likely to resurface, according to 
Falque-Pierrotin, at least not in its current form.  Much of the 
opposition to the establishment of a new government-controlled 
commission came from the Internet Rights Forum, which was concerned 
about how the two organizations would co-exist.  The six-year-old 
Forum, in which French and other European Internet representatives 
join GOF counterparts to develop appropriate legislation and 
regulations governing the Internet in France, believes that its 
private/public approach has produced results superior to a "top 
down" regulatory approach.  The draft decree was unclear on how the 
new ethics commission, which would have been composed of five 
appointees of the Prime Minister's Office, would interact with the 
Forum. The press had speculated that the Commission would replace 
the Forum. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Falque-Pierrotin told us that the GOF has, on several 
occasions in the past, attempted to create government-appointed 
bodies with more sweeping regulatory powers over the Internet.  In a 
2004 bill "for confidence in the Internet economy" ("loi pour la 
confiance dans l'economie numerique"), the GOF proposed to give 
French Television Broadcasting Authority CSA the power to regulate 
the Internet.  The Forum opposed that draft legislation, which was 
subsequently withdrawn.  Falque-Pierrotin feared that the current 
draft decree was a repeat of that earlier bill, and the Forum's 
pressure appears to have convinced the GOF to shelve the decree for 
now. 
 
Taping Acts of Violence and Consequences 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Falque-Pierrotin also downplayed the potential liability 
implications of a March 5, 2007 law designed to prevent social 
delinquency, which had alarmed observers for its potential impact on 
freedom of expression (ref B).  Tucked deep into a 50-page 
anti-crime law, a two-line provision criminalized the filming or 
broadcasting of acts of violence by anyone other than professional 
journalists.  The provision aimed to battle "happy slapping," the 
youth fad of filming violent acts that they provoke themselves. 
However, contrary to what has been reported in the press, the 
measure differentiates between those who film such acts and are 
considered accomplices of the act (a provision first introduced in a 
2004 law), and those who post the video on the Internet and risk 
five years imprisonment and a 75,000 euro fine. 
 
PARIS 00001074  002 OF 002 
 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) Falque-Pierrotin added that those filming violent crimes 
could legally do so if they were professional journalists, or if 
they wanted to provide evidence to the police.  Falque-Pierrotin 
emphasized that the new provision would not create liability issues 
for firms that host content, such as My Space and You Tube.  These 
are governed by the 2004 law on the confidence in the digital 
economy, which requires that Internet Service providers (ISP) have 
an alert system and that they provide the name of the person 
responsible for posting videos with illicit content, i.e. child 
pornography or content inciting racism. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) While much of the press attention on the March 5 law to 
prevent social delinquency focused on possible arrests for filming 
police brutality, the law does not address this issue directly.  The 
courts will ultimately define how much leeway individuals are given 
in filming violent acts, especially acts of violence by the police 
during demonstrations.  End Comment. 
 
Stapleton