well, I read the document, i.e. the letter the President sent to Bernard Kouchner one of his minister. Obviously it is in French and not translated, so the post’s author above should be forgiven for relying on secondary sources. But its contents, frankly, has nothing to do with what is said and the comments given in English on Laquadraturenet. I think their analysis is a manifesto for their own ideas rather than a reflection on what the letter actually says. The President wants internet to be regulated so as to provide checks and balances between different freedoms and rights, and he cites Hadopi as well as cybercrime legislation as examples of this balance to be achieved. There is nothing to be said against this. That we may think that the balance has not been correct with Hadopi, fine. It is probably not correct indeed. But to infer from this comment that the President is against all liberties, especially freedom of expression, is an overstatement bordering on bad faith. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/sarkozy-exports-repressive-internet/ We can criticise somebody’s approach and points of view, but to do so there is no need to extrapolate. Sarkozy is not all evil, even if he has always been obsessed with a hard-line criminal policy, and he is not President of an autocratic regime and constitution. Don’t give more credits to him than he deserves.
“French ISP Free Gives In, Will Send 3 Strikes Notices“, TechDirt 15 October 2010. Not surprised really; if Google, Microsoftt and Yahoo give in to government’s pressure, why should another small ISP decide to fight it?
French Culture Minister Unilaterally Tries To Change Hadopi Rules To Close Loophole, TechDirt 14 Octobre 2010
More surprising is the claim that the various decrees are illegal. Frankly, that the Minister took the decrees is not in itself illegal as the legislation (and the Constitution) requires him to do so. The terms of the decrees don’t either look illegal whatsoever. The Conseil d’Etat (The Council of State), i.e. the French Supreme Court for administrative law where most complaints against illegality and unconstitutionality of decrees/statutory instruments end up to, has more over ruled on 15 September 2010 that there was no serious doubt of illegality that would allow the Conseil d’Etat to order the temporary suspension of the decree (injunction). The judge in charge, Bernard Stirn, is well known for his in-depth knowledge of liberties.