With banking having left the nation dunned by creditors demanding something more than $20,000 from every man woman and child in the tiny island nation, Iceland may have found a replacement, and this one may actually produce something of real value.
Specifically, they are looking at “passing the strongest combination of source protection, freedom of speech, and libel-tourism prevention laws in the world“: (see also here and here)
On Tuesday, [Feb 16] the Icelandic parliament is expected to introduce a measure aimed at making the country an international center for investigative journalism publishing, by passing the strongest combination of source protection, freedom of speech, and libel-tourism prevention laws in the world.
Supporters of the proposal say the move would make Iceland an “offshore publishing center” for free speech, analogous to the offshore financial havens that allow corporations to hide capital from authorities. Could global news organizations with a home office in Reykjavík soon be as common as Delaware corporations or Cayman Islands assets?
“This is a legislative package to create a haven for freedom of expression,” Icelandic member of parliament Birgitta Jónsdóttir confirmed to me, saying that a proposal for comprehensive media law reform will be filed in parliament on Tuesday, and that whistle-blowing specialists Wikileaks has been involved in drafting it. There have been persistent hints of an Icelandic media move in recent weeks, including tweets from Wikileaks and a cryptic message from the newly created @icelandmedia Twitter account.
It might not be a big market, but with a population of 320,000, it does not need to be, and we all win.
I think that the libel tourism laws might be the most significant, if it can be structured in a way that has meaning; Too many times, the UK’s draconian libel laws are used as a cudgel against free speech.
It’s one of the questions I’ve always wondered about regarding the internet: Why haven’t countries used this to their advantage, rather than just knuckling to the US acting as laptog to the RIAA, MPAA, and other acronyms.
H/t Murray Waas.
"<span>Why haven't countries used this to their advantage"</span>
because their countries are populated by leftist lunatics who think constricting speech is 'politically correct'. I'm not sure Iceland has totaled up what this move will mean for them, but I wish them the best. The scandanavian countries are well known for their liberal lunacy.
Ummm…When you look at western nations that have, or engage in press restrictions, you have the UK's abysmal libel laws, which place the burden of proof on the defendant, which are hundreds of years old. and Italy's recent Google decision, which was clearly driven by the desires of right wing Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
In fact, when you look at things like openness, it is the Scandanavian nations, with things like the Swedish constitution's requirement for Offentlighetsprincipen that lead the world in press freedoms.