FRENCH 'CONSEIL CONSTITUTIONNEL' DECISION : UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF FILLON'S
                                   AMENDMENT
                                       
AUI Press release - 07/25/1996

   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   AUI (Association of Internet Users) acknowledges with satisfaction the
   decision reached by the Conseil Constitutionnel on July 24, 1996,
   about the French Telco Act ; the Conseil states the
   unconstitutionality of articles 43-2 and 43-3 within article 15 of the
   Act.
   
   The Conseil Constitutionnel received on June 24, 1996, a request from
   61 Senators belonging to the Socialist Group (president : M. Claude
   Estier) to examine the eventual unconstitutionality of the Telco Act.
   This request bore specific emphasis on articles 6, 8 and 15 of the
   Act.
   
   Article 15, better known as "Amendment N°200", or "Fillon Amendment"
   (after Francois Fillon, French Minister of Telecommunications and
   Space), dealt with the control over the Internet, and was made of the
   three articles 43-1, 43-2 and 43-3.
   This article 15 was analyzed by AUI, which issued a press release on
   June 11, 1996, stating that the said Amendment was "hasty, useless,
   unjustified, technically unapplicable and dangerous to democracy and
   freedom of expression". AUI asked for the withdrawal of Fillon
   Amendment, and alerted the public opinion and the concerned
   authorities. More specifically, AUI sent its analysis of the Amendment
   to all the political groups of the Senate and the Assemblee Nationale.
   
   
   AUI considers that its analysis is in concordance with the decision of
   the Conseil Constitutionnel declaring as unconstitutional articles
   43-2 and 43-3 within article 15.
   
   Article 43-2 placed CST (Conseil Supérieur de la Télématique) under
   the authority of CSA (Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel), and granted
   CST with advisory privileges.
   AUI considered (and demonstrated) that this article was a threat to
   democracy and freedom of expression, both guaranteed to any citizen by
   the Constitution. AUI considers that any citizen is responsible of his
   sayings, including those distributed via the Internet, only before
   justice.
   AUI welcomes particularly the rejection of article 43-2, which would
   have constituted a dangerous threat to freedom of expression.
   
   Article 43-3 forced upon Internet Services Providers an obligation of
   results, and would have been prosecuted for infringing an advice from
   the CST.
   AUI considers that rejection of article 43-3, the dispositions of
   which are inseparable from those in article 43-2, clears up threats
   ISPs could only have protected themselves from by a very strict
   control of the information distributed via the Internet.
   
   Article 43-1 was not rejected by the Conseil Constitutionnel. The
   constitutionality of this article was not discussed by AUI.
   AUI nonetheless reminds that the availability of technical means for
   restricting Internet access and selecting Internet services is not
   guaranteed, and that the obligation imposed upon the ISPs to offer
   such means to their clients should concern only limited means.
   Nevertheless, since the decision to use these means is the sole
   responsability of the clients, AUI considers that article 43-1 is not
   a threat to freedom of expression.
   
   M. Francois Fillon declared to AFP that he will offer new propositions
   about the rejected articles ; AUI demands that these new propositions
   be discussed within the frame of an actual concertation with the
   Internet users, represented by their existing associations, among
   which AUI.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Copyright © 1996, Association des Utilisateurs d'Internet
     _________________________________________________________________