The European Parliament has just voted in favor of the much-discussed blanket ban on all forms of pornography. But first, it decided to strike out the much-discussed extension of “media” into the internet, effectively limiting the ban to advertising and some undefined print media. It also struck out the original criminalization of any dissent against the report and the turning of ISPs into thought police. However, Parliament’s decision to filter out its constituents’ protests on the matter and decision to hide how the representatives voted on the report is a loud and clear warning signal.

(UPDATE: It would seem that the most correct interpretation of the decision is that the parliament decided to not ban pornography, despite voting in favor of a bill that called for enforcement on exactly such a ban. These things are not always clear-cut, to say the least, even for us who work with it daily. See the followup article.)

While this is an “initiative report”, which means it is not the final vote in the legislative process, it is still part of the legislative process. Some people have used the term “non-binding” to describe the report. I would disagree that such recklessness can be excused at any point in the legislative process with the somewhat strange argument that things aren’t finalized; if this lax attitude to quality and workmanship existed elsewhere in society, our cars would be falling apart and our food would be poisonous.

The original report banned sexual text messaging between consenting adults.

The report refers to an earlier report calling for a blanket ban on pornography in advertising, which it refers to as “the media”. But this new report redefines media to include the Internet to an unclarified degree (in point 14) – which can be as broad as making it illegal to send text messages with sexual content over the Internet between married couples.

That is a clear and intolerable violation of the most basic freedoms of speech and expression.

Fortunately, the entire point 14 – which expanded “the media” onto the internet – was deleted in the vote.

The European Parliament responded by deleting the explaining language, but not the legislative effect in bill.

To accommodate the storm of protests that ensued when this was first discovered, the report was amended to remove the explanation of what it did, but not the effect. Specifically, this part was taken out:

17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism

Do you see what this does? It removes the explanation, but not the referenced report, so it just hides the clarification.

The European Parliament responded by shutting off constituents’ protests.

But the next step was even worse. Some Members of European Parliament (MEPs) had complained to the Parliament’s IT staff about citizens protesting, so protests against this particular report were classified as spam. Meanwhile, hundreds of mails protesting agricultural subsidies kept coming in to the MEPs’ inboxes, so the spam filter was very specifically targeted. (Later tests confirmed that a test had been added that targeted the words “gender stereotypes”, which are in the title of the report).

When some MEPs can use Parliament’s technical infrastructure and staff to prevent the constitutents of Europe to contact their representatives — other representatives than the ones complaining, all representatives, nota bene — then the respect for democracy is on its death bed.

The original report made ISPs into thought police.

The report also called for ISPs to enforce the ban, as originally written (but this point was defeated on the floor). We have seen theses attacks on the messenger immunity under the flag of “self-regulation” from many incumbent interests. But it is not “self-“, because ISPs will be doing it to their customers, and it is not “regulation”, because they don’t get a say on the rules. It is “policing”. We have an institution in society to perform that function and that is indeed the Police. Private interests should never be tasked with law enforcement, and for very good reasons.

When ISPs are policing what you do privately on the internet, that is as close as you can get to a thought police today.

Fortunately, this point – point 14 – was defeated on the floor, along with point 19 below.

The original report criminalized dissent of the ban.

Point 19 of the original report is even more interesting. It reads (my highlights);

19. Calls on the Member States to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualization of girls

This may look good on the surface but is incredibly broad. First, “regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media” is not good from any angle, regardless of how noble the aim may be. Politicians should never, ever, under any circumstance, have a say in what the media may write about them.

But note the second part of the mandate – impose “effective sanctions” (which means anything from fine to jail) on individuals that “promote sexualization of girls”.

Note that it doesn’t say “individuals that sexualize girls”. It says “promote sexualization of girls”. As in, express an idea that puts it in a positive light.

Combined with covering the internet, this goes as far as criminalizing the expression “I like pornography”, expressed by an individual in a private setting. Assuming women were involved, that would be a textbook promotion of such sexualization, and this report originally said that fines or jail should apply to that expressed thought.

Fortunately, this point was defeated (along with point 14) in the vote. But the idea that it could even go as far as the floor is horrifying.

The European Parliament hides who voted how.

Finally, the Parliament didn’t care to do a so-called “roll call vote” – a vote where it shows who voted how. In other words, they decided collectively to disable their consituents from holding them accountable. Thus, the only thing published is how Parliament voted as a whole.

The end result of the initiative report wasn’t as bad as it could have been – it mostly reaffirmed an ages-old and non-enforced ban on all forms of pornography in “the media”, which is still rather undefined. But without the points 14 and 19 defeated, the report would have looked entirely different.

This, along with the arrogance in deleting the explanation of what the report aimed at but not its effect, and the audacity of filtering out communication from constituents on a current affairs topic coming to a legislative vote, is quite damning for the European Parliament.

The process is much more cause for concern than the end product.

If the behavior of the European Parliament on this report is an indicator of the health of the institution of the European Union as a whole, then the federation’s democratic legitimacy is already dead beyond Rigor Mortis, and the institution of the European Union as such is at a dead end.

Meanwhile, we should be proud of ourselves as activists to having made noise on the issue. If we had not raised hell, the horrifying points 14 and 19 above would almost have been sure to pass in silence.