Politica · Protest liabilityFrance rioters bill: Senate backs online-content restrictions 219–115Scritto 28 ottobre 2026 alle ore 14:38 UTCGuardaTrascrizione0:07French senators voted two hundred and nineteen to one hundred fifteen for new online0:11content restrictions.0:12The wider bill could make participants pay for damage someone else caused, with0:15household benefits exposed.0:17It still has to become law.0:19How far would these new powers reach?0:20The Senate has passed the wider compensation bill under an accelerated procedure.0:24Committee approval came on October twenty one, followed by the opening of chamber0:28debate on October twenty-seven.0:30Its next destination is the National Assembly.0:32The government announced the proposal after violence surrounding Paris Saint0:36Germain's2026 Champions League victory.0:39School student mobilization then helped accelerate its examination.0:42Interior Minister Laurent Nuez presented the online measure as a response to damage0:46around demonstrations on October17 .0:48Nuez says the government wants to use Ferros, the system for reporting unlawful0:53internet material, to remove dangerous posts.0:55He told senators that calls to insurrection were circulating and defended a wider0:59power to demand their removal.1:00The ordinary route targets clearly unlawful incitement that could cause a serious1:04public order disturbance.1:05That includes calls to violence.1:07Theft, destruction, and property damage.1:09Authorities would request removal, and platforms would have twenty four hours to1:13act.1:14If a platform leaves covered content available beyond twenty-four hours, authorities1:18could seek blocking or delisting.1:20Delisting makes a site harder to find through search.1:23Blocking interrupts access, potentially affecting much more than the original post.1:27The government also proposed a faster route for calls to an attack, insurrection or1:31taking up arms against the state or part of the population.1:34It would have allowed just one hour for removal before authorities could seek1:37blocking and delisting.1:38The government reportedly dropped that one hour route after Nuevez raised1:42constitutional and European law concerns, but an amendment the Senate lists as1:45adopted still describes it.1:47The final combined text needs to clarify which version survived.1:50The Senate records the government amendment and an identical proposal led by Senator1:54Damien Michelette as adopted together.1:56Michaelet's published amendment retains the emergency explanation.1:59It also contains substantial penalties for hosting providers that fail to remove2:03covered content within twenty-four hours.2:05That amendment sets six months imprisonment.2:07And a fine of one hundred fifty-zero euros.2:10For a company, the fine could reach two percent of its previous year's worldwide2:13turnover before tax.2:15These penalties appear in the amendment and aren't in force.2:18Companies could also face a ban on the relevant business activity for up to five2:22years.2:22The unresolved final wording prevents treating every provision on that amendment2:26page as the definitive Senate package.2:28Michaelit defended the measure as disarming offenders' use of networks.2:32Ecologist Thomas Dossus called it a disproportionate restriction on freedom of2:35expression.2:36Communist Fabian Gay warned that an authoritarian government could use it to control2:40social movements.2:41The rightmost centrists and the national rally supported the online measure.2:45The left opposed it.2:46Some right, wing, and centrist senators also questioned whether the restrictions2:50were proportionate.2:50The compensation provisions could reach someone who never broke a window.2:54A judge could impose shared civil responsibility on a person who knowingly joined a2:58group formed to cause damage, or stayed after two police orders to disperse.3:02That would let authorities seek compensation beyond the individual who directly3:06caused the loss.3:07Opponents argue that a participant could end up sharing a debt for another person's3:10actions, discouraging people from demonstrating.3:13The ceiling during examination was ten zero euros.3:16Senators rejected an amendment to raise it to twenty zero euros.3:19A judge would decide liability under the proposed conditions, so the figure wouldn't3:23automatically become a debt owed by every demonstrator.3:26Senators rejected a formal motion challenging the bill's constitutional3:29admissibility.3:30That parliamentary vote leaves the constitutional arguments open to judicial3:33scrutiny.3:34The dispute includes personal responsibility and the freedoms to assemble, speak,3:38and demonstrate.3:39The committee offered protection for people with a legitimate reason to remain,3:42including journalists, observers, and medical workers.3:45The government sought to narrow that protection to professional journalists, which3:49wording survived still needs clarification in the final text.3:52The bill would also make certain social benefits available to recover compensation3:56debts.3:56During examination, that included housing assistance and family allowances.4:00The committee added the RSA minimum, income benefit, while allowing the possibility4:05of leaving recipients a minimum amount to live on.4:07Recovery from benefits remained in the adopted bill, but a late rewrite changed the4:11relevant article.4:12The earlier benefit list and minimum income protection, therefore need checking4:16against the final wording.4:17Money used for rent, children, and basic living costs is at stake.4:21The Senate also approved individual protest bans that prefects could impose on4:24people considered particularly violent, even without a prior conviction.4:28The committee's broader package included loosening drone restrictions at4:31demonstrations and possible exclusion from France for foreigners convicted of4:35specified serious offenses.4:36France has already faced a court challenge over shutting down a social network.4:40The precedent concerns New Caledonia, where the government interrupted TikTok during4:44violent riots in May2024 .4:46The Conseil d'État ruled that shutdown unlawful on April one,2025 .4:50Gabriel Etal's government had ordered a complete interruption for an indefinite4:54period.4:55The court accepted that exceptional violence could justify an initial temporary4:58suspension when no technical alternative was immediately available.5:01Continuing public order problems alone couldn't justify keeping it blocked.5:05The court said continued blocking had to depend on the inability to introduce less5:09restrictive alternatives.5:11Those could include working with the provider to restrict particular functions.5:14A total shutdown affects expression and access to ideas, alongside private life and5:19business activity.5:20The court set three requirements: a suspension must be essential to confront5:24particularly serious events.5:25No immediately available technical alternative can interfere less with rights, and5:30blocking must last only as long as needed to identify and implement alternatives.5:34Administrative judges can review such action.5:36Ordinarily, suspending an online service requires a legal basis.5:40Exceptional circumstances can permit urgent action when ordinary and emergency5:44powers are insufficient.5:45Separately, the one thousand nine hundred and fifty five state of emergency law5:50allows suspension of services inciting or glorifying terrorism.5:53The Digital Services Act also provides a judicial route to temporary access5:57restrictions.5:57Authorities must first exhaust other enforcement powers.6:00The continuing infringement must cause serious harm that can't otherwise be avoided.6:04And involve a criminal offense threatening people's life or safety.6:07The provider must also have failed to comply sufficiently with earlier enforcement6:11requirements.6:11Any restriction must be proportionate and avoid unduly cutting off lawful6:15information.6:16The European Commission alone enforces a specified set of obligations for very large6:20platforms and search engines.6:22For other obligations, the country of the provider's main establishment can retain6:26enforcement powers unless the Commission has opened proceedings over the same6:29infringement.6:29Those rules don't by themselves decide whether the proposed French mechanism6:33complies with European law.6:35The one hour conflict and the final safeguards for blocking, legitimate observers,6:39and household subsistence still need resolving in the combined Senate text.6:42The Senate has advanced a24-hour removal route and a compensation mechanism reaching6:47beyond the person who directly caused damage.6:49Further parliamentary consideration will determine their final reach.6:52The National Assembly is next, with no confirmed date for its debate.Leggi l’articoloCronologia della storiaHeyDexCopertura correlataSviluppo successivo·8 ott, 0:32 UTCA Lens Pupil Lost His Hand. France’s Grenade Pause Leaves the Crucial Questions Open
