Urging caution in adopting anti-terror legislation that curbs freedom of speech, Assange warned that "what happens in Europe is used to justify even more extreme forms of censorship elsewhere in the world".
"The USA is no longer the great protector of freedom of speech, so Europe must pick up the mantle," said the Australian editor of WikiLeaks, a website designed to protect the anonymity of whistle-blowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive information to communicate to the public.
"No-one else is going to do it, and someone must act as a role model for China," Assange added.
He was speaking at a debate on the challenges facing freedom of expression in Europe at the European Parliament on Monday (21 June).
"There is a drive for a Europe-wide Internet censorship system. Political parties are mobilising and this is a very serious issue," Assange said.
"The pressure for harmonisation is immense, but which way are we going to go? Towards China? Germany has a mandatory state censorship law," the WikiLeaks chief added.
"We have exposed the state censorship blacklists of many countries, which are ostensibly meant to reduce the risk of child pornography, but are in fact used for all sorts of things, like preventing criticism of the king in Thailand," he explained.
His fears were echoed by Birgitta Jónsdóttir, the Icelandic MP behind a landmark law protecting journalists' sources which was adopted in parliament last week and has attracted media attention all over the world as it will make the country a safe haven for investigative journalists (see 'Background').
Normally China is the focus of attention when it comes to threats to freedom of expression, said Jónsdóttir, "but the situation in Europe is much worse than you think as a result of anti-terror legislation".
The Icelander urged EU lawmakers to "draw from the best of laws worldwide and legislate accordingly". "The media has no borders any more, so we need to move beyond the US-Europe-UK debate" and think about rule-making on a global scale, she added.
Limits to EU competence
The EU's 27 member states have divergent laws protecting the freedom of speech and the anonymity of sources, which makes action at European level difficult.
"There are issues regarding which national law should apply to which case, so without harmonisation there are limits to what can be achieved institutionally at EU level," German liberal MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE).
"At the moment it depends on what happens in national courts. We need to find the best way of dealing with this in the EU institutions," Lambsdorff said.
Others pointed out that self-expression is not the only freedom that comes into play when debating censorship.
"We must recognise that reputation and privacy are also of key importance. Freedom of expression is not the only freedom at stake here," said Professor Alastair Mullins, dean of the Norwich Law School at the University of East Anglia.
In February, a Milan court convicted three Google executives for the 2006 transmission of a video showing the bullying of a youth with Down's Syndrome (EurActiv 26/02/10).
The case offered a stark warning of the effect that allowing content to be freely posted online can have on individual lives. The three executives were sentenced to six months in jail after being convicted of invasion of privacy.
The case stemmed from an incident in 2006 when students at an Italian school filmed and then uploaded a clip to Google Video showing them bullying a schoolmate with Down's Syndrome (EurActiv 17/12/09).
Mullins argued that "the media should not be free to publish naked untruths and falseness, with total disregard for the consequences, without fear of discrimination," questioning whether "US-style free speech fundamentalism" is the right approach for Europe.
He also warned against treating the Internet as a lawless zone. "Many of the restrictions limiting the liability of Internet service providers and search engines are justified, but they should not be given a free ride and the Internet should not be a law-free zone".
