Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-25-Speech-4-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080925.17.4-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Marianne Mikko’s report is a shining example of when good intentions go too far and end up in conflict with the independence of the media and the fundamental principles of freedom of expression. Mrs Mikko’s original proposal – which, among other things, covered the possibility of registration, a right to reply and facilities to prosecute authors of blogs – was far removed from the conception I have of freedom of expression and opinion-forming. Fortunately the report was redrafted on these points before the proposal came before the plenary. However, this redrafting was not sufficient to enable me to support the report; on many points, the proposal is still in conflict with the independence of the media, free opinion-forming and freedom of expression.
Amendment 5 – which was finally approved by Parliament – is a better alternative to the report. Better but not good. The issue of media concentration and diversity is important and should be discussed. But this resolution is not the right way to go. Questions concerning the media must always be handled in a responsible and considered manner. When it comes to media independence, freedom of opinion-forming and freedom of expression, I cannot compromise. These values are far too fundamental to tinker with. I therefore abstained in today’s vote. By this action I seek to show my support for the debate, but also to express my concern over repeated attempts to regulate questions concerning the media and freedom of expression."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples