Mise à jour : 2 juillet 2012 (Rédaction initiale : 22 juin 2012 )

Sur le vif

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission had sanctioned for "indecency" two non-cabled television channels ABC and Fox, to have shown a woman entering back in the shower and let a singer say a rude word in a live broadcast. On appeal, the sanction was set aside by the federal judge. The regulator applies to the Supreme Court of the United States, which declared the case admissible and proceeds with the case, in a judgment of June 21, 2012. It dismisses the appeal of the regulator.It considers indeed that the regulator cannot punish channels in application of too-vague criteria of "indecency", as chains should know to what they expose themselves to the point where they act; otherwise punishment is contrary to the Constitution. This is a transposition of the legality of offences and penalties. The Court prefers to put the analysis on this field, repressive, and not the addressed by it, of the freedom of expression.

Mise à jour : 29 mai 2012 (Rédaction initiale : 17 mai 2012 )

Sur le vif

In the United States, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), on 1994 allows some services of the State which justify it, in particular the F.B.I, to carry out telephone tapping. But the technology also allows the transmission of voice by other means than the phone, especially via the Internet. However, wiretapping as a threat to individual liberties, only an Act may extend the powers of listening, on the phone on the modes of transmission of voice on the Internet. In this view, the F.B.I. is developing which is intended to become an extension of the Act of 1994.

Mise à jour : 3 avril 2012 (Rédaction initiale : 26 mars 2012 )


Mise à jour : 3 janvier 2012 (Rédaction initiale : 2 janvier 2012 )


Mise à jour : 2 janvier 2012 (Rédaction initiale : 2 janvier 2012 )

Parutions : Neutrality in Systems of Economic Regulation

Translated Summaries

In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors


The debate on Net Neutrality faces a major difficulty, namely that of its legal status: does there exist a “legal principle”—meaning a rule somewhere within the entire body of law—with mandatory force that could be used to counter infrastructure operators’ discriminatory practices?



Le débat sur la neutralité du Net fait face à une difficulté majeure, à savoir son statut juridique: existe-t-il un «principe juridique», qui exprime une règle dans l’ensemble du système juridique - avec une force obligatoire qui pourrait être utilisée pour contrer les pratiques discriminatoires des opérateurs d’ infrastructure ?


El debate sobre la Neutralidad de la Red se enfrenta a una gran dificultad, primordialmente en cuanto a su estatus legal: ¿realmente existe un “principio legal” – es decir, una regla que se encuentra dentro de la disciplina del derecho – con fuerza mandataria que podría ser usado para enfrentar a las prácticas discriminatorios que practican los operadores de infraestructura?


Il dibattito sulla neutralità della rete si trova di fronte ad una difficoltà rilevante dal punto di vista del suo fondamento giuridico: esiste una norma giuridica obbligatoria – intesa come una norma legale – che possa essere utilizzata contro le pratiche discriminatorie degli operatori?


Other translations forthcoming.