The EP's Blogging Report

A few months ago the European Blogosphere (well, the eurosceptics, especially) was going haywire over a mere report by an Estonian Member of European Parliament, Marianne Mikko. The relevant text of her report read:

(Recital) O. whereas weblogs are an increasingly common medium for self-expression by media professionals as well as private persons, the status of their authors and publishers, including their legal status, is neither determined nor made clear to the readers of the weblogs, causing uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits,

(Paragraph) 9. suggests clarifying the legal status of weblogs and sites based on user-generated content, assimilating them for legal purposes with any other form of public expression,

The new report reads:

(Recital) AH. whereas weblogs represent an important new contribution to freedom of expression and are increasingly used by media professionals as well as by private persons,

(Paragraph) 25. Encourages an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs;

There's also some stuff about citing your sources when you copy text online, but that is no more than the law of the land already holds (and in any case, it's all symbolic). So as Julien Frisch says, we can go out and drink coffee.

Marianne Mikko has some sour grapes over on being on the receiving end of a lot of abuse, as reported by the EUobserver:

"I've been subject to a lot of attacks from bloggers all over Europe," Ms Mikko told reporters after the passage of the resolution. "I've been called Mao Tse-Tung, Lukashenko, Ceauscescu - it's not very pleasant."

"I understand and yet I don't understand the reaction of bloggers," she said. "Nobody is interested in regulating the internet ... But I understand how a sensitivity was touched. I'm sorry that's the playground we're dealing with at the moment."

She pointed out that while print and online journalists in various jurisdictions are restricted by slander and libel legislation, the status of bloggers as reporters is unclear.

"Are bloggers equally trusted [as journalists]? I'm getting a little bit concerned."

"All you journalists know how powerful the web is," she said, speaking to reporters at a press conference. "But do all bloggers think the same? The web is a weapon in your hands. You can kill someone with your words."

In spite of being called all manner of names by uncivil bloggers, though, Marianne Mikko managed to get through the whole experience.

(there are obviously some speech acts that are worth criminalising. such as direct threats, or incitement to murder. but no cases of words killing directly are known to me)

Mikko's statement that "nobody is interested in regulating the internet" is obvious cant. There is already regulation of the internet. And legislative authorities always have an interest in establishing regulation, so that they can extract money from lobbyists, firms and just plainly increase their own general power.

If she were honest, Marianne Mikko would just admit that her report would not have accomplished any actual regulation even if it wanted to, because it is largely symbolic.

Are weblogs equally trusted? I don't know. There's a fool born every minute (multiple fools, even, despite the EU's current low birthrate). But there is plenty of crap in newspapers, too.

Comparing 'bloggers' and 'journalists' as such makes little sense. The focus of bloggers and reporters tend to be different, bloggers being generally more like columnists than reporters. As rare as proper journalism done well may be getting...