This is the only point that is related to the so-called “digital explosion”. But the content of the review could have been published elsewhere before the “digital explosion”. So you’re missing the point of you series.

Of course you can argue against censorship, but this case is not a consequence of any web-immanent mechanisms.

I am no law expert but I take a particular interest in those regarding freedom of speech on the internet. The ground for the lawsuit here is “calomnie” (calumny/slander).
However I was referring to Hadopi and Lopsi because they are prime exemples of where our government is heading towards internet laws. Even though it is highly anti-constitutional, there IS pressure put on the judges to make the internet a “safer place”.
Lopsi 2 has not been adopted by Senate yet, but in its current version, the government would be allowed to ask an internet service provider to remove any offensive content, without having to make a case for it. Of course they say it is only to prevent things like pedopornography, but in this particular instance, this new law could be used to ask the ISP to take down the content if it is hosted in France, or to prevent every user from accessing it without the use of a proxy.

Sadly, this particular exemple is yet another in a long list of bad precedents.

A new gambling law, which should take effect before the Soccer World Cup, prevents french poker players from playing online with anyone but other french players.

It is a scary thought that the internet in France could very well lose its world wide aspect.

So to stay on topic, you’re right it is an old law, but it was only used to take down insults or threats, not thoughtful content. I sincerely hope the editor of the European Journal of International Law will be acquitted of all charges.

I can very well see how these new laws could mean knowing less as a result of digital explosion.

(I hope I made my point clear, as english isn’t my native language I always fear not to be well understood)