The " new technologies " which appeared thirty years ago and are characterized by a considerable development are subject to fundamental legal questions. The definition of new technologies remains vague and includes the information and communication technologies.
The information and communication technology groups include the innovations realized in the storage volume and the speed of the data processing and its transport thanks to the numeric and to the new ways of telecommunications (fiber optic network, cable, satellites, wireless technology).
These technologies have an impact on multiple domains, on our way of living, our economy. Considering the dynamic development of Internet, these new technologies force the legislator to establish specific laws as far as the already established Law is not efficient to address the needs arising from the development of those technologies. Indeed, Internet offers multiple possibilities, from the simple E-mail to the financial and stock-exchange services, the e-commerce, any demand can be satisfied today.
This diversity of services comes to complicate the legal environment leading to a convergence of the different fields of the Law. Indeed, e-commerce concerns inevitably contract laws, consumption law ; e-mail correspondence concerns right to privacy, telecommunications law…
[...] Internet allows an " endless world conversation " according to the US supreme court in 1996.[10] But what about the topics of that conversation ? Is it normal, in the name of the freedom of expression, to authorize the promotion of racist or xenophobic ideas ? The article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms contains some restrictions to the freedom of expression : The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. [...]
[...] The emergence of such new ways of communication, doing business, personnal correspondence raises fundamental legal questions. First of all, in the field of the information, the current debate is focused around the compatibility between freedom of expression and the necessary limits to violent comments, racism, homophobia . How the competent jurisdiction at the national or european level deal with that challenges ? Do they only refer to established laws or are they forced to establish new specific and more dynamic laws ? [...]
[...] This directive is about a harmonization of the European audiovisual sector. It is interesting to observe, how by this directive, the commission tried to regulate this sector by integrating elements relative to the development of the new technologies. Indeed the scope of application of that directive includes the traditional services of television, but also new services such as the contents on demand of the users. The commission proposed to regulate all these services on a common legal ground for all European Union on the basis of the protection of minors, interdiction of racism, homophobia, regulations of advertisements. [...]
[...] In the framework of the Council of Europe, the sources of the freedom of expression are included in the article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom in a democratic context. However, the development of the new technologes, and in particular Internet puts the question of the limits to be established, to respect the freedom of everyone. [...]
[...] The legislator allows the employers to control the activity of its employees in order to ensure the correct use of their working time. But this rule might be in opposition of individual freedom concerning the right to privacy. In the case Nikon France of October 2nd, 2001[36] ruled by the Court of Cassation limited the powers of the employers concerning the right to privacy of its employees by establishing a new border between the mail received or emitted by the employee as an individual or as an employee of the company. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
