Third party litigation funding and consumer redress

The EU Commission has recenetly published a comprehensive Study on Mapping Third Party Litigation Funding in the European Union incliuding all EU member states. Although the study covers all aspects of third party litigation funding, it is a potentially powerful tool for enforcing consumer rights, especially complex and costly collective redress actions, and can therefore be of interest to practicioners and academics alike interested in better enforcement of consumer rights. See also BEUC's view on third party litigation funding for collective redress.

(Non-)Existence of right of withdrawal must be unconditional – CJEU in C‑529/19

In Case C‑529/19 (here), the CJEU interpreted the Consumer Rights Directive, particularly the right of withdrawal and its exceptions (Article 16). In this case, the consumer bought a fitted kitchen from Möbel Kraft (a German furniture company) at a trade fair. Later, the consumer communicated to Möbel Kraft its wish to withdraw from the contract. Consequently, the consumer refused to accepted delivery of the kitchen. In response, Möbel Kraft sued for breach of contract. Möbel Kraft had not yet started to manufacture the kitchen parts at issue when the consumer withdrew from the contract.

While Article 9 of the Consumer Rights Directive gives consumer the right to withdraw from an off-premises or distance contract, Article 16 lists several situations where that right does not apply. One of those situations is when the consumer buys goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalized (Article 16(c)). Given Article 16(c), the referring court asked the CJEU whether the consumer’s right to withdraw from an off-premises contract is also excluded in case where goods are made according to the consumer’s specifications, but the seller has not yet begun to produce the goods and therefore does not incur in any (or few) costs in case of the consumer’s withdrawal.

The CJEU starts by clarifying that the contract in question can only be considered an off-premises contract if it was not concluded at the trade fair stand, which can be seen as ‘business premises’ according to Article 2(9) of the Consumer Rights Directive. Then, the CJEU states that there is nothing in the Consumer Rights Directive that indicates that the exception of Article 16(c) is dependent on the occurrence of any event after the conclusion of the off-premises contract (para 24). In fact, the CJEU states that this exception is inherent to the subject matter of such a contract. In other words, the application of this exception is independent from the stage of performance of the contract (or the stage of production of the products in question) (para 24). Consequently, the CJEU determines that the exception to the right of withdrawal in off-premises contracts where the consumer acquires personalized goods applies from the outset of the contract. The CJEU extracted this conclusion not only from the literal element of Article 16(c) but also from its systematic element, since Article 6(1)(h) and (k) of the Consumer Rights Directive impose a pre-contractual duty on the trader to inform the consumer of the existence or absence of a right of withdrawal (para 25). If the existence of a right of withdrawal would be dependent on a decision of the trader (namely when to start performing the contract), the goal of providing the mandated pre-contractual information would be frustrated (para 27). Finally, to allow the right of withdrawal to depend on the moment in time where the trader starts to produce the goods would be contrary to legal certainty (para 28).

With this decision, the CJEU establishes the inflexible character not only of the right of withdrawal but also of its exceptions. The CJEU’s decision opts for legal certainty over consumer protection considering that, in practice, this means that every time that a consumer acquires a personalized product she can never withdraw from that contract, regardless of the actual costs suffered by the business. Therefore, the CJEU directly contradicts national case law from, for example, the Bundesgerichtshof, which previously determined that the right of withdrawal is not excluded if the goods can be restored at a low cost to the condition they were in prior to the personalization.

Vouchers everywhere? News from Germany

While the Commission clashes with Member States over airlines' vouchers-in-lieu-of-reimbursement policies (see our blog), similar approaches seem to be taking hold also in other areas of economic life and contracting.

Yesterday, remarkably, the German Parliament has passed legislation retroactively depriving buyers of event tickets and service subscribers of the possibility to claim a reimbursement in case the event or service provision they paid for are cancelled as a consequence of the pandemic. The rules apply to tickets sold before 8 March.

Exceptions are provided for consumers who can prove that the restriction would be unbearable for them due to personal circumstances. Furthermore, reimbursement will be possible when the voucher has not been spent by 31 December 2021.

Consumers will be able to use the vouchers for the same show/event or, when possible, for different ones. The idea behind the German legislator's intervention is to protect event organisers and service providers, who are known to be struggling at the moment and for whom, of course, reimbursements would entail serious liquidity issues.

The Verbraucherzentrale has criticised the choice to force vouchers upon consumers and in particular the retroactive effect of the law.

500 online businesses do not comply with consumer rights

Recently, the European Commission released the results of a screening (or ‘sweep’) of 481 retail e-shops (press release available here). The main finding was that more than 2/3 of the screened online businesses do not comply with EU consumer rights legislation (particularly the Consumer Rights Directive). This number means that consumers are not properly informed on their rights in 2 out of 3 shops.  

Article 6 of the Consumer Rights Directive establishes that in distance contracts consumers should be given a long list of information, including on the withdrawal right, on the legal guarantee and on the total price of the product. Furthermore – and most importantly -, this information must be given in a clear and comprehensible manner. However, according to the screening, more than 1/4 of the analyzed websites did not inform consumers about how to withdraw from a contract. This breaches Article 6(1)(h) of the Consumer Rights Directive. Furthermore, nearly 1/2 of the analyzed websites did not provide such information in a clear manner (particularly regarding the 14 days’ time limit). This breaches Article 6(1) of the Consumer Rights Directive. The failure to inform the consumer about the right to withdrawal is ‘punished’ by the Consumer Rights Directive with an extension of the period of withdrawal from 14 days to 14 days and 12 months (Article 10(1)).

The sweep also found a frequent breach of the pre-contractual duty to inform on the total price of the purchase. In fact, in over 1/5 of the consulted websites the price initially shown did not include additional charges such as delivery or postal charges. This breaches Article 6(1)(e) of the Consumer Rights Directive. Other findings show that over 1/3 of the analyzed businesses did not inform consumers about the 2-year legal guarantee to have a good repaired, replaced or reimbursed in case of a defect at the moment of delivery. This breaches Article 6(1)(l) of the Consumer Rights Directive.

The lack of adequate pre-contractual information is one of the biggest challenges faced by consumers, and one that the EU legislator has spent quite some time working on. Of course, one of the main problems of the information paradigm in EU consumer law is its lack of enforceability. Even though businesses often breach their duty to provide information in a clear way, it is (ironically) unclear what the legal and practical consequences for such a breach are. The Commission, however, promises an ‘in-depth investigation of the above-mentioned irregularities’ at national level and the subsequent request for traders to correct and improve the information they provide to consumers.

Conference on the New Deal for Consumers

On Thursday 11 and Friday 12 April 2019 the conference 'A New Deal for Civil Justice? The New Deal for Consumers and the Justiciability of EU Consumer Rights' will take place in Amsterdam. Attendance is free of charge; you can register by sending an e-mail to: l.d.kaspar@uva.nl

The final programme is now available:

REFIT report of EU consumer law: exciting times ahead

Readers of this blog will know that 1,5 years ago the European Commission published a 'roadmap' for an evaluation and fitness check of EU consumer law (as a part of its 'Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme'; REFIT). Today, the Commission presented an analysis which is intended to "serve as a basis for further improving the legal framework of consumer and business" (click here for the press release). According to the Commission, "[t]he results show that while European consumers already benefit from strong consumer rights, there is room for improvement for instance when it comes to enforcing these rights or making them fit for the digital age".

For this analysis, six consumer directives have been reviewed, including the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Consumer Sales Directive and the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. Several issues are identified that should be addressed, such as limited redress possibilities and consumer rights not being fully adapted to the digital world. The Commission has announced that it will further examine rules concerning, inter alia, (civil law/contractual) remedies, online services and online platforms. It will also look into strengthening and harmonising the level of sanctions as well as injunctions and collective redress. This year (2017) a public consultation and an impact assessment will follow. 

We will keep you informed about any relevant (legislative) developments on this blog. For more information about the review of EU consumer law, see here.

Putting an end to silos enforcement of consumer (data protection) rights?

Last month, BEUC and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) held a joint conference on the enforcement of fundamental rights- notably, the right to privacy- in the age of big data. 

BEUC urges all competent authorities to coordinate their actions and strategies in this field, putting an end to "silos" enforcement, which is unable to guarantee equal respect of consumer rights across policy areas. 

BEUC particularly welcomed the EDPS's recently published opinion on "coherent enforcement of fundamental rights in the age of big data", which contains a set of recommendations, Here an excerpt from the study summary:

"The EU institutions and bodies, and national authorities when implementing EU law, are required to uphold the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Several of these provisions, including the rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, freedom of expression and non-discrimination, are threatened by normative behaviour and standards that now prevail in cyberspace. The EU already has sufficient tools available for addressing market distortions that act against the interests of the individual and society in general. A number of practices in digital markets may infringe two or more applicable legal frameworks, each of which is underpinned by the notion of ‘fairness’. Like several studies in recent months, we are calling for more dialogue, lesson-learning and even collaboration between regulators of conduct in the digital environment. We also stress the need for the EU to create conditions online, as well as offline, in which the rights and freedoms of the Charter may thrive.

This Opinion therefore recommends establishing a Digital Clearing House for enforcement in the EU digital sector, a voluntary network of regulatory bodies to share information, voluntarily and within the bounds of their respective competences, about possible abuses in the digital ecosystem and the most effective way of tackling them. This should be supplemented by guidance on how regulators could coherently apply rules protecting the individual. We also recommend that the EU institutions with external experts explore the creation of a common area, a space on the web where, in line with the Charter, individuals are able to interact without being tracked. Finally, we recommend updating the rules on how authorities apply merger controls better to protect online privacy, personal information and freedom of expression."

According to the opinion, the Digital Single Market strategy represents a good opportunity for taking a more coherent approach. We will see whether the different actors involved will be willing to seize the chance!

Unfair terms and the rights of co-debtors as consumers: Bocura v Bancpost (C-348-14)

In a decision published yesterday, the ECJ clarified and reaffirmed a few points concerning the relationship between the information duties established under the Consumer Credit Directive ("old" version, or 87/102) and the Unfair Terms Directive (93/13). 

It also made clear- which should not come as a surprise- that a natural person assuming the role of co-debtor within a consumer credit contract, for reasons not pertaining to her professional activity, should be considered a consumer under both directives. As a consequence, such co-debtor is entitled to receiving all the information that the Consumer Credit Directive requires lenders to provide to consumers.  

The interesting consequence is that, for the ends of assessing whether certain terms contained in a credit contracts should be considered as sufficiently clear and comprehensible, the co-debtor's position should also be taken into account. In particular, in order to assess whether the terms in that contract satisfied the transparency requirement irrespective of the fact that they did not mention certain elements that Directive 87/102 considers as essential information, the consideration of whether "the set of elements liable to have an incidence on the extent of her commitment" has been duly "communicated to the consumer" should, it seems, include the co-debtor's position. 

The decision is, as usual, available on the Court's website (currently only in French and Romanian).

What does the EP mean to consumers? - BEUC manifesto

While the elections for the European Parliament have started, it may be interesting to take some time to consider what is the Parliament's significance for consumers. In a recent Manifesto, European consumer organisation BEUC highlights the EP's impact on consumers' lives in the past years and sets out a list for future action.

The main areas indicated in the Manifesto are:

- food

- financial services

- consumer rights

- digital rights.

Furthermore, BEUC points its attention to the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), emphasising the importance of transparency in the negotiation process and in dispute resolution.

Monique Goyens, BEUC's Director General adds:

“Consumer policy directly and tangibly impacts on citizens’ daily lives. Over the last 30 years, the EU has written a true success story in this field. It has provided many fundamental protections, better market access, product safety standards, shopping and information rights. Yet most people are unaware that these often originate in ‘Brussels’.

“The new MEPs taking up office will be faced with major challenges such as securing stronger safeguards for financial services, improving the telecoms market, ensuring a neutral internet and restoring consumers’ trust in the food industry after recent scandals.

“The Parliament is still the most trusted EU institution. The incoming MEPs should understand that consumer policy is a way of reaching out to European citizens. They must work to sustain and increase this trust by putting consumer interests central.”

Do you copy that? - BEUC's new copyright strategy

In particular in the digital environment, consumers are more and more often facing questions concerning copyright. As the European consumer organisation BEUC puts it in a letter to European Commission President Barroso:

'From the consumers’ point of view, the current copyright framework is far from balanced. In many Member States, copyright law makes the everyday activities of consumers, such as backing up and copying legally bought music, films and e-books in order to play on a different device, illegal. Under current laws, parodies and pastiches which have gained new cultural relevance in the digital ‘mash up’ culture are illegal.'

According to BEUC, the current legal framework regarding consumers' use of copyright protected material is outdated, since it does not sufficiently take into account consumer expectations and the public interest. For that reason, BEUC has now published a Copyright Strategy, which lists specific action points for specific problems on the intersection of consumer law and copyright law. 

As regards consumer rights, BEUC's main suggestions are to:

• Recognise consumers as a key stakeholder in debates and discussions surrounding copyright law on equal footing as creators and copyright users;
• Assess the effectiveness of the current copyright law from the consumers’ perspective;
• Strike a balance by recognising a set of clear, comprehensive and absolute consumers’ rights;
• Revise the Copyright Directive 2001/29 with the aim of establishing a flexible, future-proof and consumer-friendly copyright law;
• Replace the current system of copyright exceptions and limitations with a system of user’s rights.

Towards removing hurdles to single market

The European Parliament adopted yesterday a non-binding resolution addressing consumers' concerns with regards to the single market. In the resolution the Members of the European Parliament point out specific cases in which the lack of sufficient, uniform protection given to consumers throughout Europe is especially visible (banking services, vehicle registration, recognition of qualifications etc.). See our earlier post on this subject: Addressing consumers' concerns.

Addressing consumers' concerns

The Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee of the European Parliament adopted a nonbinding resolution this Tuesday in which it points out to the failures of the internal, single market that prevent consumers from using their rights effectively. The Committee addressed 20 main consumers' concerns based on the independent survey that was conducted in 2011 (The Single Market through the lens of the people: A snapshot of citizens' and businesses' 20 main concerns). The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on this proposal in October. (Member States must stop dragging their feet...) Some of the main concerns that it argues should be handled and solved by the European Commission are:

• administrative problems consumers face while importing cars from one Member State to another (suggested solution: MS should recognise each other's technical controls and simplify car registration process)
•  complicated procedures of opening a bank account (solution: universal access to basic banking services for European citizens)
• difficulties with having one's professional qualifications recognised (solution: European professional card)
• lack of information about the single market (solution: regular European interactive, informative campaigns)

Leaving on a jet plane

Tomorrow, 4th of July, European Consumer Centres (ECC-net) will be offering advice to passengers at 28 airports across Europe. The purpose of the event is to inform European citizens of their air passenger rights, a topic that is among the ones most dealt with by ECC-net when helping consumers. According to recent data, in 2011 a fifth of the complaints that European Consumer Centres dealt with (5 600 of 28 000) concerned air travel:

'The main causes for complaint were cancelled flights (about 30% of the cases), delays (24%), lost or damaged luggage (15%), but also denied boarding, non-transparent prices and surcharges, technical problems in the booking process or unfair commercial practices.'

The ECC-net helped travellers reach amicable solutions with airlines in almost 50% of the cases.

More information is available in the European Commission's press release on tomorrow's event and on the ECC-net's website.

In the meantime, as air passenger rights are concerned, we await the CJEU's judgment in cases C-581/10 and C-629/10 (Nelson and Others, TUI Travel and Others) (a summary of AG Bot's opinion in these cases appeared on this blog earlier).

Can ECCs help you as well?

In 2011, over 70 000 consumers received free advice and assistence from the European Consumer Centres Network.

The centres, established in every EU country (plus Norway and Iceland), offer advice before purchasing something cross-border and assistance in case something goes wrong. 

In 2011, the majority (ca. 54%) of the cases handled by ECCs was either solved directly (ca. 41%) or handled to other organisations (ca. 13%). When a solution could not be reached, this was largely due to lack of cooperation on the side of businesses, but also, in increased proportion since the previous year, some of the claims were simply found to be... unfounded. If you are experiencing problems, then, it might be definitely worth a try.

More facts and contacts (including where to find ECCs in the various countries) can be found in the easy-to-read report brochure.

Who are the champions?

Consumer protection in the past few years grew significantly in importance. As a result the European institutions do not limit themselves to drafting new consumer legislation and supervising their implementations but try also to intervene whenever European consumers' interests could be endangered in more ad hoc matters. A recent example thereof is the creation of a new website that gives consumer tips to fans travelling to EURO 2012 games in Poland or Ukraine. This new website is accessible, e.g., from the UEFA EURO 2012 homepage and will be broadly advertised, e.g., in hotels in Poland. The idea is to give an overview to consumers travelling en masse to and from Poland of their rights and obligations in this country, e.g., when their luggage will get lost on the way to the games, or when the hotel service will not be as advertised.

"The Europe Direct Contact Centre services will answer any on-line query on general EU consumer rights in 23 languages while a consumer Infoline in English – operated by the Polish consumer organisation Federacja Konsumentów – will provide legal support to those who run into consumer problems in Poland." (European Commission and UEFA launch 'Consumer Tips' for fans travelling to EURO 2012)

The infoline should already by open and operate until 31st of July 2012. The free number from a Polish phone (either mobile or fixed-line) is: 800 007 707. From a foreign phone you should call (it's not free then!): 0048 228 27 5474.

Europe and you

As a follow-up to the previous post, other initiatives for European citizens (also in their capacity of consumers) are:

1. The launch of the broadest public consultation ever on EU citizens' rights. Have you ever encountered difficulties moving to another EU country or shopping cross-border? European Commissioner Viviane Reding invites all European citizens to fill out a brief questionnaire to express their views on citizens' rights in the EU. See the press release and the questionnaire 'your rights, your future'. The consultation will be open till 9 September 2012.

2. A manifesto for re-building Europe from the bottom up, published by 90 European intellectuals. The manifesto introduces the idea of a 'European year of volunteering for everyone', utilising existing programmes such as the European Voluntary Service and Erasmus for All.

Roadmap for the European Consumer Agenda

I mentioned yesterday (Your voice in Europe) that it is easy to follow upcoming policy and legislative initiatives of the European Commission via published roadmaps. Among the roadmaps prepared for 2012 there is one on the European Consumer Agenda. This new policy document is supposed to be adopted in March/April 2012. What are its main goals? I present you a summary of what is to be expected:

1. Product safety.

While in the past years cooperation between market surveillance authorities has increased, further progress in ensuring that standards for product safety are the same across Europe (and are being enforced) is necessary. Further development of the RAPEX network is an essential part of this, however, the absence of a clear pan-European enforcement framework causes problems. These problems increased due to the globalisation of the production chain in the past years (ca 70% of dangerous products notified in RAPEX originate from outside the EU). The aim of the Consumer Agenda will be to ensure consumer product safety, to develop international cooperation to deal with the globalisation of production chains, to provide safety of services, as well as food safety. The General Product Safety Directive is currently under revision, which means that these objectives may be adjusted based on the outcome of that revision.

2. Consumer market monitoring.

Consumer policy is supported by up-to-date reports on consumer behavior and consumer market. Consumer Market Scoreboard and other in-depth studies conducted for the EC or independently play a significant role in making sure that consumer policy remains valid and effective. While market monitoring is quite recent (started in 2009), it should be continued in order to identify trends, help improve consumer decision-making and provide a solid basis for policy makers.

3. Consumer education.

There is a need to consolidate education tools provided by various European organisations (e.g. Dolceta), in order to make them more effective. Current education tools (one-size-fits-all) are no longer adapted to consumer needs, e.g. less than half of consumers across the EU27 feel both confident, knowledgeable and protected as consumers. Additionally, reports have shown that there is a need to increase consumers' awareness of their rights as well their financial literacy. A single consumer information resource (dynamic and interactive) should be developed. There is an on-going evaluation of existing education tools, the results of which will be available in June. The objective is also to conduct awareness-raising campaigns on issues affecting consumers.

4. Supporting consumer organisations.

National and EU consumer organisations are seen as crucial participants in works on future European policy. This means that more training and assistance needs to be provided, especially to national consumer organisations whose recognition vary among Member States.

5.  Consumer rights.

While on one hand consumers are often not aware of their rights in the EU, on the other hand existing legislation doesn't always provide consumers with sufficient protection. E.g. package travel directive fails to protect consumers who book their holidays themselves, independently of travel agencies, via various websites online (ca 56% consumers book their holidays this way). Consumer protection as far as purchase of digital products is concerned is unclear on a European and often also national level (while ca 54% of consumers of digital products had experienced at least one problem in the course of the past 12 months). 

Clearly, consumer legislation should be further adapted to the changed consumption patterns. The objective is to contribute to the implementation of a revised Package Travel Directive and the implementation and enforcement of the Timeshare Directive. Moreover, the data protection legislation should be up-dated in order to ensure that consumers get clear information and their consent is sought whenever their personal data are processed, while ensuring better data portability and making it more possible for consumers to switch between different service providers. Legislation protecting consumers against unfair commercial practices and misleading advertising should be kept up to date, as well, especially in the context of the financial services.

Additionally, where consumer rights are granted based on minimum harmonisation European measures, there is a chance of diversity between the legislation of the Member States, which leads to confusion and lack of trust in concluding cross-border transactions both for consumers and traders. These difficulties burden the development of the Single Market and should be addressed.

6. Consumer redress.

Consumer redress is a powerful tool that consumers should gain easier access to and become more aware thereof. Current awareness of consumers about the means of redress is insufficient. The goal is to examine the mechanisms of redress that are available but also the cooperation between national public enforcement authorities. The establishment of a well-functioning European Judicial Area and the development of the ADR and ODR systems should strengthen the consumer right to redress.

7. Enforcement (including cross-border enforcement).

The network of enforcement authorities (CPC Network) should be further strengthened by improving its cooperation (e.g. through active involvement of the Commission). Consumer awareness as to the existence of such networks (e.g. ECC-net) should be increased. ECC-net should strengthen cooperation with enforcement bodies so that traders will not ignore consumer complaints knowing that the ECCs have no powers to enforce compliance (including on ADR). Additionally, an important part of individual enforcement is a proper implementation of Community legislation, that allows the citizens to rely on the rights they have been given. That requires strict monitoring of the implementation of consumer legislation in all Member States, which is more effective since the implementation of online databases of implementation measures, linking also to court cases and legal expertise, and which should be upheld. Also, the Mediation Directive should be correctly implemented for cross-border disputes. Finally, consumers should have means to enforce their rights better also for small claims, which might call for the review of the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) as well as an initiative on a coherent approach on collective redress.

Reporting on digital content contracts

Yesterday, together with three colleagues, I attended a conference on 'Consumer legislation for digital products' that was organised by DG Justice in Brussels. At this conference we presented the results of a study on the topic that we carried out on request of the European Commission. This study was a joint project of the Centre for the Study of European Contract Law (CSECL) and the Institute for Information Law (IViR) and concerned the legal framework for digital products, such as films, music, e-mail, social networking and e-books. Empirical data on problems that consumers encounter when buying and using these types of digital content were provided by Europe Economics, whose report is also available on the Commission's website.

As indicated by the Commission, 'the studies will feed into the Commission’s ongoing work aimed to ensure a stepped up enforcement of the existing legislation also to purchases of digital content and to assess the need for further possible adaptation of EU consumer legislation to changing markets'. In this field, the recently adopted Consumer Rights Directive and the proposal for an optional Common European Sales Law are of importance.

Are we there yet?... Adoption of Consumer Rights Directive. Finally!

The new EU Consumer Rights Directive has been formally adopted today by Member States in the EU's Council of Ministers. The works on this Directive were stormy and its scope has changed tremendously from the first draft that we had seen in October 2008. The agreement between the institutions of the EU was difficult to reach, but after many compromises had been made, the Directive became a reality. The final text is not published yet, but from the news (New EU rules on consumer rights to enter into force; Council approves new directive) it seems that the text had not changed since June 2011, i.e. the last amendments adopted by the European Parliament. Spain was the only country who voted against adoption of this Directive in the Council. The Directive will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal. The Member States will have 2 years to implement it.

For top 10 benefits for consumers in the new Directive see here. More detailed analysis will follow on this blog as soon as we get the official text.

(Free) speech online

Shortly before my weekend starts I wanted to share with you a video that I have watched recently. It's another inspiring TED Talk. This time I stumbled upon a presentation of Rebecca MacKinnon, an expert on Chinese Internet censorship, who talks about problems with free speech in the online environment ('Let's take back the Internet!'). It made me wonder about times changing and how our ancestors fought hard battles to have a right to speak publicly about any (well, almost any) subject they wanted to, and how we are now taking it for granted.

Also, since I have visited Vietnam at the beginning of this year I became more aware of Internet censorship. Namely, I encountered problems with logging on certain websites while I was in Vietnam, e.g. Facebook was blocked most of the time. Then my Vietnamese friends explained to me that it was not due to a network problem, as I thought it was, but rather it was an intended action of a network who needed to please the communistic authorities by not letting its users use/see certain content online. I was also quickly brought up to date with anti-censorship software that I could install on my laptop and go around the network's restrictions.

Without much further ado...