More merde flying over LeWeb3?

UPDATE:

After both Loic and Kristen kindly leaving comments below, and Loic posting a very interesting video with Ethan Zuckerman on his site, I thought I should add it here to give his opinion on the issue.

Before Christmas, there was a big merdestorm over over a certain French politician gatecrashing the LeWeb conference/unconference.

Someone coming to talk to a group of inherently openminded, and pro-freespeech people would have shot him on sight, if he had spoken about the new law ,making it illegal for anyone but “professional journalists” to “film or broadcast acts of violence”.

I don’t always agree with Dave Winer, but I think he is bang on the head with this comment:

There’s this weird tech industry thing about friendship, people throw the word around so casually, until something like this happens. If you think LeMeur is a friend, why is he advising and supporting (and giving stage time at a blogging conference) to Sarkozy?

He’s at a conference in the US now. If you see him, you might ask him what his position is on Sarkozy now that he has acted against amateur journalists, against bloggers.

Kristin Lowe also explains it well:

the law was proposed by none other than Nicloas Sarkozy, the French right-wing presidential candidate and Minister of the interior, whose presidential campaign is being advised by Loic LeMeur, Six Apart’s European VP and one of France’s most widely read bloggers. LeMeur is said to support Sarkozy in ‘part because he believes he is the best candidate to help bring new opportunities to the French software and technology industries.’ Right.

Do I sense another shitstorm brewing over LeMeur’s public backing of Sarkozy?

[tags] leweb3 , Le Web 3 , shitstorm , runningwithbulls.com , Loic Le Meur , nicholas sarkozy , french politics , freespeech [/tags]

Loic says:

March 9, 2007 at 01:03

Hi, check my answer and judge by yourself, I think that shitstorm is based on people who have not read the content of that law…

Kristine says:

March 9, 2007 at 14:19

To that I can only answer: check the comments, cross-posted re: the new law on both mine and Loic’s blogs, more on LeWeb3 on mine. I don’t think there will be another ‘merdestorm’ over LeWeb3, but, with all that’s been said on this issue so far, I’m still worried about this new law and think its ambiguity has many troubling possible implications.

I have no issue with any blogger publicly backing a politician, I just think this particular politician, and his government, have proposed two scary new laws that will affect issues like freedom of expression and online censorship in France, to what extent we do not yet know. And did BBC, The Times, IDG New Service, Reporters Without Borders etc really all get this story wrong?

bbt says:

March 9, 2007 at 15:59

Hi Loic,

While the title may have been baited, my reasoning behind it was that you had publically backed a politician who has now defended a law that can be *interpretated* as censorship, particularly to in respect to the Internet community.

Firstly: I have no issue with you publically backing a politician. Each is entitled to his/her own.

But what is wrong that Mr. Sarkozy has backed a law that is not specific in its wording.

The notion of stopping these ridiculous happy-slapping videos is needed, but it should have been worded better.

The idea of censorship for public safety is not the answer.

I have however added your video to the post I have made, to explain your views.

thanks
bernard

March 9, 2007 at 16:02

Hi Kristine,

Thank you for the comment.

My title, while it may have been slightly “sensational” still has some merit behind it.

My reasoning behind saying “more merde flying” is more the fact that a high profile member of the Blog O’ Sphere (as we in Ireland call it) has backed (and of course well within his rights to do so) a politician who has backed a law that is worrying for citizens.

Like you have already said, each person is entitled to, by human rights, to their choice of political opinion.

But when that person is publically backing a politician that has backed a law that is not specific in what it sets out to achieve.
As Kenneth Thomas commented on your blog:

what we should be concerned with, is not the incidental assault on citizen journalism in this legislation, but the general assault on freedom of expression and action.

Loic himself said in the video interview with Ethan Zuckerman that “maybe Mr. Sarkozy has mis-communicated the law”.

……the legislation might not be used, to cite a classic French example, against a(n incidental) videographer who caught police violence against protesters. Power is power, and La France is France… and any legislation like this opens the possibility of abuse when truth must confront power.

So perhaps what we should be concerned with, is not the incidental assault on citizen journalism in this legislation, but the general assault on freedom of expression and action.

This is an issue that is raising its ugly head all over Europe more and more recently. Between data privacy law possibly being circumvented, and in some cases being ignored completely, these types of laws are not in the public interest. They are instilling a sense of censorship for the public good

The “devil is in the details,” as it is said in English, and such questions are indeed disturbing in the context of a legislative act whose apparent aim is to restrict freedom of expression in various situations.

What Loic could have done was advise Mr. Sarkozy on the law. Explain why this could be seen badly, particularly since it had alot to do with the Internet community/blogging community.

The answers you got from the ministry of the interior, and Kenneth’s comment, shows that this may not be the major threat to citizen journalism as so many feared, but Kenneth’s comment doesn’t make me less worried about this dubious law.

I am not sure if it was “targetted” at the Internet community, but it did look that way. And again as Ethan Zuckerman said in the video on Loic’s website, other Francophile countried could look to this law and adapt/adopt it.

These laws are simply badly worded and can lead to misinterpretations.

Any thoughts?

March 9, 2007 at 17:06

- I’m all with you here, Bernard. And I did like your title, I remember that ‘merdestorm’ very vividly, but think if there is a storm over this it will be about the laws. I do think that we may be a bit unfair to Loic here in assuming that he can determine Sarkozy’s internet policy’s just because he’s advising him on his online campaign. But, on the other hand, one important piece of advice in waging a successful online campaign would be:

Don’t come up with crappy laws that alienate the blogosphere, have mainstream media talk of ‘a clampdown on citizen journalism’, Reporters Without Broders issue concerns about censorship, and don’t propose issuing ‘government-approved-sources-of-information-labels’ to identify ‘trustworthy’ websites, blog hosts etc. which makes you feel like somebody all of a sudden brought back the old Soviet.

If we all got this wrong it means either it was two very ambiguously phrased laws, somebody wrote a really dubious press release that a bunch of journos reprinted and the rest of us trusted, or one key source got it all wrong and the rest followed his or her lead like headless chickens.

March 15, 2007 at 20:21

Hi, thanks for updating with the video. That law was designed close to two years ago, I did not even know Sarkozy, how could I have advised him ? Also, you all over rate my influence on him, see I could not even get Nicolas Sarkozy take a question at LeWeb3, do you think I can get him change a law ? I said I would vote for him, I give some advise on his online campaign and his internet program, that’s all… It’s really difficult to turn into “the Scoble of Sarkozy” as my role is way below what people think… Good conversation anyway, thanks. See you at the next LeWeb3 and tell me what shitstorm you want next time, at the end of the day, it was fun

RunningWithBulls.com - The curse of Sanfermin