The Right of Rebuttal


The person whose moral and material interests are affected by the broadcast of false information has the right to ask the radio-television broadcaster, private or public, to broadcast a rebuttal on radio or on television respectively.

The rebuttal is aired free of charge in the next edition of the same program or category of programs.

The rebuttal must be signed by the interested party or his legal representative and contain only the facts which he believes affect him.

The party demanding the right to rebuttal shall provide evidence that the information broadcast about him is false and his legitimate interests have been harmed.

The right to rebuttal is not granted when the facts that the person thinks affect him have emerged in the sessions of the People’s Assembly or in a court of law.

The Right to Respond Should be a Fundamental Right of the Internet

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2007-06-06 16:29:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Readers reading a Right to Respond posting will know that it is likely biased but at least they can make up their own minds.

There should be a tiny Right to Respond widget or link next to any content. The widget is fed by a central Right to Respond.org server. If there is a response filed by a company or individual, it will indicate it, in the same way as my Technorati widget found at the end of each article shows readers if there are other blogs mentioning this post.

- Companies would pay to use this service, individuals would have free access.

- Web site owners/publishers/bloggers, etc would not be forced to provide a Right to Respond link next to their content. But if they did, it would show that they are a respectable and responsible site. Sites that are critical and that won't offer a right to respond will be seen as less credible.

- Offering a Right to Respond link should become the responsible thing to do--especially if a site's reach, such as Google's could potentially and inadvertently cause harm to reputation.

Dans certains pays, dont la France, une personne estimant que l'on a déformé ou fourni de façon incomplète des faits la concernant peut demander à bénéficier d'un droit de réponse. La réponse est en principe publiée dans des conditions comparables à l'article original (même corps typographique, et parfois même rubrique).

Dans le cas où ce droit ne serait pas respecté et où la personne s'estimerait diffamée, elle peut porter l'affaire devant les tribunaux dans le cadre des lois sur la diffamation (qui ne suppose pas nécessairement la calomnie : des faits exacts peuvent être considérés comme diffamatoires, comme par exemple le fait de citer des faits de nature, si on les énonce seuls, à nuire à la réputation de la personne, dans le même temps qu'on omet de citer des éléments importants qui remettraient son action dans son contexte. Exemple : « M. X a été mêlé en telle année à une affaire de vol de voiture » si la réalité des faits est qu'on avait volé à cette époque la voiture de M. X.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_réponse
dupa cum scrie mai sus exista in unele tari numai

In Canada : daca e o stire care lezeaza un politician de ex, ziarul il suna si il intreba : Care to comment? si il citeaza odata cu articolul
Chestia e ca e un drept legiferat in unele tari ( Franta, Romania) - ziarul carea publicat articolul initial ARE OBLIGATIA sa publica raspunsul, in alte tari NU E OBLIGAT DAR... il publica ca pe un comentariu al persoanei care face obiectul articolului
As propune :

Legal right have a comment ( on a published article) printed

ca descrie ce se intampla

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2007-06-07 03:51:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Legal right TO have a comment ( on a published article) printed