25 Lib Dem PPCs sign letter asking Lib Dem Parliamentarians to think again on Digital Economy Bill

The Digital Economy Bill has become one of the most heavily debated topics on this site. Posts related to it often generate a large number of comments, but today’s have done far more than that.

A bit of background first for anyone new to the story or catching up on it. The Digital Economy Bill has generated a lot of controversy for its proposals to do with copyright and illegal filesharing, with Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group urging the party to oppose it in a guest post. Some of those issues I took up in an interview with Don Foster, reported on here.

In the last day or so there has been particular focus on an amendment put forward in the Lords by Tim Clement-Jones and Tim Razzall, the reasoning for which Tim Clement-Jones explained in a post here but which journalist and author (and Lib Dem member) Cory Doctorow disagreed with.

Tim Clement-Jones has responded to many of the criticisms made of the amendment in an interview earlier today with ZDNet, including this answer on the risks of censorship:

Do you think your amendment might need further tweaking to prevent it being used for some kind of censorship?
If there are rough edges to the amendment, we’ll certainly look at those. If people have genuine amendments they want to put forward, I’d be perfectly happy to look at that, and I hope the government would too. But I don’t believe, in its current form, there is any possibility of censorship.

You can read the full interview here.

In the latest move in the debate within the party, a group of Liberal Democrat prospective Parliamentary candidates have penned an open letter:

We write to express our concern at the amendments to the Digital Economy Bill tabled by Liberal Democrat peers with Conservative support today. The amendments would allow the High Court to issue injunctions to ISPs to block sites for copyright infringement.

We are proud of the record of Liberal Democrat peers in taking swift action, including working across party lines, to defeat some of the worst legislation to come out of this Labour government. We applaud the intention to give parties accused of copyright infringement the protection of the courts rather than subjecting them to the political whim of the Secretary of State. But in practice these amendments would still lead to a situation that is incompatible with our principles of freedom and fairness.

Giving the power to block whole sites, in the world of user-generated content, is both draconian and unworkable.

Using the courts runs the same risk as the libel laws, of empowering the rich and well-connected to close down comment from those who may have right on their side, but cannot afford to contest cases.

By encouraging self-censorship to avoid possible penalty, this legislation could act perniciously against free speech in a free society.

We fear that these amendments take a public position that is at odds with our Party’s values, our other policies, and the reality of the digital environment.

As prospective MPs, we ask our current Parliamentary colleagues to think again.

Yours sincerely,

Bridget Fox, Islington South & Finsbury
Julian Huppert, Cambridge
Martin Tod, Winchester
Farid Ahmed, Walthamstow
Jon Ball, Ealing Central & Acton
Alan Beddow, Warwick & Leamington
Mike Bell, Weston-super-Mare
Duncan Borrowman, Old Bexley & Sidcup
Sal Brinton, Watford
Belinda Brooks-Gordon, West Suffolk
Alan Bullion, Sevenoaks
Adrian Collett, Aldershot
Andrew Dakers, Brentford & Isleworth
Sue Doughty, Guildford
Helen Duffett, Romford
Merlene Emerson, Hammersmith
Gareth Epps, Reading East
Ed Fordham, Hampstead & Kilburn
Steve Goddard, Oxford East
Simon McDougall, Bognor Regis & Littlehampton
Jo Shaw, Holborn & St Pancras
Sandy Walkington, St Albans
Peter Welch, Southend West
Munira Wilson, Feltham & Heston
Simon Wright, Norwich South

From the conversations I’ve had with key people in the party, there is clearly a great willingness to try to find a line that has broad support in the party so the letter, combined with the interview answer quoted above, suggests there may be more news to come.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/18185 for Twitter and emails.

20 Comments

  • My first reaction when I heard about this amendment was to quit the party. I felt betrayed. I’ve calmed down since, and I’m glad to see others in the party feel the same sense of… disappointment… that we’re tabling amendments that we ought to be objecting to on principle.

    I spoke to my MP about the bill, voicing my objects. Susan Kramer’s office never did get back to me. They said they needed to figure out what policy to adopt and they’d get back to me. Guess I know why they never did.

  • I would happily add myself to this letter.

    The amendments are well intended, but the courts are already used enough to stifle free speech.

  • Absolutely shameful amendment. It needs to be overturned as fast as possible.

  • Mike Richards 5th Mar '10 - 5:34pm

    The interview conspicuously failed to ask his Lordship about his relationship with IP lawyers DLA Piper. He takes money from people who represent media companies, he should have never proposed the amendment.

  • Tom Thomson 6th Mar '10 - 12:39am

    About a decade ago I resigned from the party on account of the disgraceful behaviour of one of the party’s representatives in the Lords. I was thinking of coming back to the fold again, until I saw this amendment. It is now impossible for me to consider supporting the party, because it is clearly somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan in it’s technology policy. Lord Clement-Jones, with his well-known ignorance of computer science, information technology, and indeed oif the world wide web has perpetrated an idiocy which will not be forgotten. Why throw away the safeguards incorporated in the 1988 act and decide that ISPs are guilty even if not adequately informed of any copyright concerns? Is this compatible with the EU directive which provides immunity to ISPs when they simply transmit information provioded by others and have not received adequate advice of any copyright problems (I’ve talked to a couple of competent lawyers, and the advice I get is that it is not – what a wonderful source of income for lawyers this amendment is). Who will benefit from this nonsense? Certainly not the British people as a whole! Perhaps the plutrocrats of the various media industries, who seem to be completely unable top reconcile themselves either with modern technology or with fair use rights; or perhaps with the lawyers whom I suspect are the only peolple who will benefit from this nonsense (the colleagues of Lord Clement Jones, although I’m sure that’s just a coincidence).

6 Trackbacks

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarTim13 22nd Sep - 9:03am
    John Roffey Your proposal for a "only take one day" recount of Referendum votes does have one big flaw - it actually requires an Election...
  • User AvatarIan Hurdley 22nd Sep - 8:01am
    There is and must continue to be no provision for 1st and 2nd class MPs at Westminster. The question of who may vote on purely...
  • User AvatarBill Le Breton 22nd Sep - 7:42am
    Fast tracking English Votes for English Laws can be portrayed as protecting the privileges of the Westminster elite, but obviously holding a policy of a...
  • User Avatarjedibeeftrix 22nd Sep - 7:37am
    @ alec - "There really does not seem to be a demand for actual ‘state’ level entities within England." Thank the Lord, for a proper...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 22nd Sep - 2:51am
    Someone needs to explain to Clegg that devo on demand will increase resentment about democratic inequality and complication.
  • User Avataralec dauncey 21st Sep - 11:57pm
    Federalism demands either an English Parliament or Regional English federal entities. There really does not seem to be a demand for actual 'state' level entities...