PARIS, July 21 — France maintains what experts describe as medium internet censorship, yet the mechanics of how it got there reveal a pattern of legislative creep that accelerated sharply after a single terrorist attack. The Freedom on the Net report by Freedom House ranked France 6th globally for internet freedom in 2013, but by 2017 it had slipped to 12th.
The catch is the 2015 decline—second only to Libya—which the watchdog attributed directly to policies adopted after the Charlie Hebdo attack: restrictions on content deemed ‘apology for terrorism,’ prosecutions of users, and significantly increased surveillance.
The Legal Framework
The framework itself is older. The 2004 Loi pour la Confiance dans l’Économie Numérique (LCEN, Law for Trust in the Digital Economy) was originally designed to protect user rights. On closer reading, however, it became one plank in a broader architecture that internet advocates have since denounced as disproportionate and privacy-threatening.
In 2009, the Hadopi law allowed disconnection of internet users caught illegally downloading copyrighted content or failing to secure their systems; a companion Hadopi2 law was slated for August 2009. That same year, the LOPPSI 2 bill authorized a blacklist of child pornography sites established by the Ministry of the Interior, which ISPs must block.
Parliament in 2010 opposed all amendments seeking to minimize the use of filtering internet sites—a telling sign of the legislative mood. The OpenNet Initiative, which in November 2010 classified France as showing no evidence of internet filtering in political, social, conflict/security, or internet tools areas, nevertheless noted that 2010 was a difficult year for internet freedom due to implementation of ‘three-strikes’ copyright legislation and administrative web filtering. Reporters Without Borders added France to its ‘Countries Under Surveillance’ list that same year.
By 2013, controversial clauses in the HADOPI, LOPPSI 2, and LCEN laws provoked ire from internet advocates over disproportionate punishments for copyright violators, overreaching administrative censorship, and threats to privacy.
Judicial Crosswinds
The tension between French law and American constitutional protections played out early in the Yahoo case. In 2000, French courts demanded Yahoo! block Nazi material in the case LICRA vs. Yahoo. The following year, a U.S. District Court judge held that Yahoo could not be forced to comply with French laws against pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic views due to First Amendment free expression rights.
In 2006, a U.S. Court of Appeals reversed, finding either lack of jurisdiction or inability to enforce the order in France; the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal. What to watch next is whether France’s current administration will maintain or expand the filtering apparatus.
The post-2015 trajectory suggests a government willing to use surveillance and prosecutorial power, but the domestic pushback from internet freedom advocates remains organized and vocal. The catch is that the legal architecture—LCEN, Hadopi, LOPPSI 2—provides ample tools for expansion, with the Ministry of the Interior already operating a blacklist mechanism. Follow the money: the copyright enforcement provisions directly benefit French entertainment and publishing industries, which lobby for continued strict enforcement.
The mechanics of administrative censorship, meanwhile, operate with minimal judicial oversight once the blacklist is established.
