Bulgarian far-right party’s ‘foreign agent’ bill sparks media freedom…

Bulgarian far-right party’s ‘foreign agent’ bill sparks media freedom concerns

Press freedom groups raise alarm that law appears intended to target critical media.

The undersigned international media freedom and journalists organisations today raise the alarm over a draft law submitted to Bulgarian parliament by the far-right Vazrazhdane (Revival) party which would introduce a Russian-style “foreign agent” law involving potential sanctions for media outlets that receive funding from abroad.

The draft legislation has been developed by the pro-Russian Vazrazhdane party, which became the fourth largest faction in parliament in the recent elections and is currently in negotiations to form a coalition government. While the passing of the law in the current political climate remains doubtful, it nonetheless represents a serious threat to media freedom which the European Commission should closely monitor.

Although the progress of the bill remains stalled for now, the proposal should set alarm bells ringing given the similarities to Russia’s notorious “Foreign Agents Act”, which has been systematically weaponized over the last decade to block and shut down what remained of the country’s independent media and NGOs.

Any efforts to implement such laws in the EU should be resolutely opposed due to their potential to seriously undermine media freedom. No EU member state has passed such legislation, though in 2017 Hungary passed a law which applied to foreign funded organisations and NGOs but excluded the press, which was later found to violate EU law by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Our organisations fear the adoption of such legislation in Bulgaria could pave the way open for abuse by any government current or future seeking to discredit, stigmatize or defund critical and independent news media. Such a bill would also be highly discriminatory, create a climate of hostility for media investment, and would directly violate EU law.

The draft ‘Law on the Registration of Foreign Agents’ was unveiled by Vazrazhdane on November 2. The law would compel any media outlet which receives over BGN 1,000 (500 euros) a year from a foreign source to register as a “foreign agent” in the Ministry of Justice. Among those to be considered ‘foreign agents’ if designated as such would be a private media outlet’s founders, managers, employees, owners, partners and shareholders.

Individual journalists labelled as ‘foreign agents’ by the Ministry that fail to register would face fines of BGN 1,000 to BGN 5,000. Legal entities, such as media organisations, would face fines of BGN 5,000 to BGN 10,000. These media would also not be permitted to receive money from state funds, such as state advertising revenue. The law would apply to mass media outlets, organisations and NGOs.

As well as applying to money coming from authoritarian states like Russia or China, it would also include grants from EU Member States and the United States. The only exception to the rule would be for funding and grants from the EU Commission itself.

The timing of this bill also raises major questions about its motive. We note the proposal comes just over a month after Vazrazhdane party chairman Kostadin Kostadinov attempted to expel four private media outlets – Dnevnik, Capital, Club Z and Mediapool – from a press conference and attacked them for being “foreign agents”, drawing condemnation. All four are funded in part by grants from the U.S. but are widely viewed as being professional and independent sources of news in Bulgaria.

Our organisations find it hard to avoid the conclusion therefore that Vazrazhdane’s ‘foreign agent’ bill appears to be retaliatory in nature and targeted predominantly at media critical of the party’s policies. Another target which would be affected by the law is Svobodna Evropa, the Bulgarian arm of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is funded by the U.S Congress.

Although the likelihood of this bill ultimately becoming law is questionable, vigilance will be needed. Legitimate concerns have rightly been expressed about the incompatibility of the bill with either EU law or the Bulgarian constitution. Moving forward, it is vital that democratic parties in Bulgaria coalesce in opposition to the bill and ensure it does not progress in parliament.

We urge Vazrazhdane to withdraw the draft bill and to refrain from future attacks on independent media. Our organisations will continue to monitor the situation closely, warn about further developments, and plan to organise an international press freedom mission to Bulgaria early next year to assess the wider climate for media freedom.

Signed by:

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

Library

Italy: a call of support for Roberto Saviano, defendant…

Italy: a call of support for Roberto Saviano, defendant in a defamation trial

Members of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), with the support of the coalition’s Italian group and Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), express solidarity with Roberto Saviano who attended the first hearing in the proceedings for aggravated defamation initiated against him by current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

We are seriously concerned about the criminal proceedings initiated in 2021 by the current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the leader of Fratelli d’Italia. Under the current provisions on defamation, Roberto Saviano risks imprisonment for his criticism of Meloni during a TV programme.

Such accusations act as a gag on freedom of expression, a fundamental right enshrined in the Italian Constitution and international law. No journalist or writer should be prosecuted for expressing their honest opinion on issues of public interest. A criminal defamation suit is not an acceptable response in a democracy, all the more so when it comes from a high ranking representative of the institution. This threat to Saviano reveals, once again, the degree of the abuse of defamation suits or SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in Italy.

The lawsuit for aggravated defamation was initiated by current Prime Minister Meloni in November 2021, in response to comments made by Roberto Saviano during the episode of the TV programme Piazza Pulita which aired on 3rd December 2020. Saviano’s comment was formulated in response to the controversial rhetoric employed in recent years by the two political leaders to describe the migration emergency in the Mediterranean.

In November 2020, the NGO ship Open Arms rescued a number of displaced individuals from a shipwreck, caused by a collapsing dinghy in the Mediterranean Sea. The delayed rescue by the Italian authorities had prevented timely assistance to the survivors who were in dire need of specialist medical care, including a six-month-old infant who later died on the Open Arms. Following Piazza Pulita’s coverage of the investigation on the authorities’ delayed response, Roberto Saviano had referred to both Meloni, the then leader of Fratelli d’Italia and the Lega secretary, Matteo Salvini as ‘bastards’.

The possibility that Roberto Saviano, in his role as a writer and journalist, could incur a prison sentence for expressing his opinion on a politically sensitive issue, such as the treatment of migrants in Italy, once again draws attention to the serious inadequacies of Italian libel laws. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 21 of the Italian Constitution. Furthermore, international law and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) guarantees that the right to freedom of expression extends to statements and ideas that may ‘offend, shock or disturb’ and that opinions are entitled to enhanced protection under the guarantee of the right to freedom of expression. Further, the ECtHR has clarified that public figures and, in particular, political actors must tolerate higher levels of criticism and scrutiny given their public position within society, and that in such cases criminal prosecution has a chilling effect and is violating the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 ECHR.

Those who express their opinion on matters of public interest should not fear nor be exposed to intimidation, conviction, or imprisonment. On this last point, the Italian Constitutional Court has made its position clear, urging lawmakers to initiate a general reform of the legislation on defamation that would bring Italian legislation in line with the standards of European and international law. With the ruling of 9 June 2020 and the decision of 22 June 2021, the Court, in line with previous judgments of the ECtHR, declared prison sentences in cases of defamation in the press unconstitutional. However, the provision of prison sentences remains in place for cases of ‘exceptional gravity’. In accordance with such provisions, Saviano still faces a custodial sentence because the formal charge is aggravated defamation.

At the conclusion of the first hearing at the Criminal Court of Rome on 15 November 2022, it was decided that the trial will be re-assigned to a new judge and adjourned to 12 December. The current Minister of Infrastructure, Matteo Salvini, has filed a petition to become a civil plaintiff. The Lega leader has also a pending defamation lawsuit initiated against Roberto Saviano in 2018: its first hearing is scheduled for 1 February 2023. Further, on 28 January 2023 another defamation trial instigated by Gennaro Sangiuliano, current Minister of Culture, awaits Roberto Saviano.

At the end of the first hearing in the Meloni case on 15th November, Saviano reiterated the central role that writers play in a democratic society: “My tools are words. I try, with the word, to persuade, to convince, to activate”. Exiting the courtroom, he argued that: “Democracy is based not only on a consensus that can lead to winning the electoral lottery, but exists if dissent and criticism are allowed. Without such premises there is no democratic oxygen”.

The perilous situation in which Roberto Saviano finds himself must also be taken into account. Life under escort, already a cause of marginalisation for journalists, was only necessary due to threats made against Saviano by organised crime and these threats should not be amplified through further threats made by high ranking politicians.

Joining the dissent expressed by Italian and European journalists’ associations, the undersigned organisations call on Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to immediately withdraw the charges against Roberto Saviano. We support the recommendation formulated by Italian and European civil society and international organisations to the new parliament to act against vexatious complaints and to quickly adopt a comprehensive reform of both civil and criminal defamation laws in Italy. Finally, we urge Italy to bring forward legislation to tackle the use of SLAPPs in line with the EU Anti-SLAPP Recommendation of 27 April 2022. The Italian Government is also urged to give its full support to the Anti-SLAPP Directive as proposed by the European Commission.

Signed by:

OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
aditus foundation
Access Info Europe
ARTICLE 19
Articolo21
Blueprint for Free Speech
Center for Spatial Justice
Civic Initiatives
Civil Liberties Union For Europe
Ecojustice Ireland
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Global Witness
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
IFEX
Index on Censorship
International Press Institute
Irish PEN/ PEN na hÉireann
Justice for Journalists Foundation
Justice & Environment
Legal Human Academy
Libera Informazione
PEN International
Presseclub Concordia
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Solomon
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
Whistleblowing International Network

Allgemein

Czech government edges closer to disinformation and public media…

Czech government edges closer to disinformation and public media initiatives

One year into term, progress on media reform remains slow

By IPI Contributor Tim Gosling

In October 2021, a new Czech government was elected amid promises to shore up democracy by fighting disinformation and strengthening public media. But one year into its term and with a key media legislation yet to be passed, there are calls for greater urgency in the ongoing reform process.

Critics admit that Prime Minister Petr Fiala’s governing coalition has had plenty on its plate since taking power during the tail end of the Covid pandemic. Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine soon unleashed a wave of refugees, and energy and inflation crunches have followed. But at the same time, they contend that these crises make action all the more urgent.

The worry is that, having leveraged the threat stalking the media environment to help depose populist billionaire Andrej Babis a year ago, the five-party coalition is struggling to maintain the enthusiasm of all factions for the plan to protect the free press. However, there are signs that the role of disinformation networks in driving recent anti-government rallies may help to revive the effort.

“Pensioner’s Facebook”

With a population highly sceptical of the political establishment, the Czech Republic has proved fertile ground for the development of disinformation networks.

Ironically, it’s the relative health of the media landscape that has encouraged the growth of “alternative” networks, says Vaclav Stetka, senior lecturer in Communication and Media Studies at Loughborough University.

Elsewhere in the region, disinformation can find its way through mainstream media. In Czechia, it must find alternative channels, often fairly unique, he says.

“Chain emails have become something of a speciality,” he notes, pointing at research by The Illiberal Turn project that shows that this format enjoys far deeper penetration than in neighbouring states.

The “pensioner’s Facebook,” as these email networks have been dubbed, was instrumental in mass protests in September. Claims that sanctions against Russia and support for Ukrainian refugees are preventing the government from offering more help amid the energy and inflation crises helped put an estimated 70,000 on Prague’s Wenceslas Square.

The turnout was a surprise, in no small part because the networks used to set the protest up are largely hidden, says investigative journalist Lukas Valasek. The pro-Russian agenda put forward by the organisers – veterans of the anti-vax movement – was a shock.

These unexpected developments seem to have helped jolt the government into action, agrees Dominik Presl, a member of a team being assembled by the commissioner for media and disinformation that Fiala appointed in March. In the wake of the protests, government and security officials have been busy warning of the dangers.

“Russian disinformation is an effective means to try to weaken our democracy, as we saw in the streets last month,” Markéta Pekarová Adamová, head of the Top09 coalition party and parliament speaker, told IPI.

Alongside the rhetoric, the interior ministry is reportedly set to deliver a bill this month aimed at laying down a legislative framework that will allow the authorities to block websites considered a security risk. While the legislation is still being crafted, currently it would allow the interior ministry to order internet providers to restrict access to website content that threatens security or democracy. The ministry stresses that the bill is not aimed at halting the publication of disinformation per se, although measures to supress the spread of fake news are being developed separately.

An option to hand the oversight to an independent body is being left open to assuage worries regarding abuse by the government. Websites targeted would be able to challenge the action in court and seek compensation.

Talking the walk

Researchers say, however, that such headline-grabbing restrictive tools need to be matched with more strategic measures. And one of the prime weapons is a strong and independent public media. A bastion of independent journalism in Central & Eastern Europe, Česká televize (Czech Television; CT) has faced assault from political forces jealous of its nonalignment for decades.

The broadcaster came under sustained pressure during Babis’s reign, as populist forces sought to wrest control of its executive body, the CT Council. Then in opposition, the parties now making up the government, fought hard to hold off the assault. It was this fight as much as anything that prompted Fiala’s campaign promises. But the momentum in carrying them out has slowed.

“The promise to strengthen the resilience and independence of public media was key, especially after accusing Babis of being a threat,” points out Stetka. “But up to now it seems it was more talk than walk. The effort and the results have been disappointing.”

Progress towards this goal now looks to finally be on the way, with a package of reforms regarding appointments to the CT Council on the cards. As overseer of the broadcaster’s management, and therefore its editorial independence, many have sought to stuff the executive board with political lackeys in the past.

The proposed new measures would aim to prevent that by allowing the upper house Senate to join the lower house Chamber of Deputies in appointing the council, which would be expanded by three seats to eighteen. New rules would also govern who could propose candidates and how the executive could discipline management.

“The goal is to avoid the Polish or Hungarian route, where the current governments have taken over the public service media and completely subjugated them,” says one of the sponsors, Jan Lacina

The bill has been awaiting a hearing in parliament for months. It was finally introduced to the Chamber of Deputies for initial debate on October 13, with Lacina insisting that the government was prepared for a “big battle”.

The effort quickly turned to farce. With Fiala absent from the chamber, the opposition blocked the proceedings. It is understood that the bill should be ready to be voted on again on November 1.

A spokesperson for the ministry of culture told IPI that “we believe the amendment will enter into force at the beginning of 2023”.

On a leash

However, even if the bill is passed and the changes are made, the long-term future of the country’s public service media remains under question.

While the CT Council reform should help protect the broadcaster, it will remain under political pressure unless its perilous financial situation is solved. And Fiala’s government has ruled out dealing with the chronic underfunding at CT and its public broadcasting cousin Český rozhlas (Czech Radio) by raising the licence fees that feed their finances.

The annual fee for CT was last raised in 2008, to CZK135 (€5.48) per household. The fee for Český rozhlas has sat at CZK45 since 2005. Both broadcasters have long warned that this leaves them unable to maintain all services. And the inflation surge is only antagonising the situation.

However, Minister of Culture Martin Baxa insists that, amid the cost-of-living crisis, the government cannot propose even a minor increase. “It’s difficult to tell people that fifteen or twenty crowns is nothing for them,” he said last month, even though vulnerable households are exempt from paying.

The lack of funding threatens to leave the two public broadcasters dependent on the government, and is therefore a serious risk to independence, watchdogs warn. Stetka calls it “a means of keeping public service media on a leash”.

Others insist that it reflects an unwillingness on the part of some government factions to lose control of public media.

“It’s an open secret that the conservative wing of Fiala’s ODS party has little time for public media independence,” said one journalist, who’s close to the topic, off record. “They have no intention of handing the country’s main TV broadcaster free reign.”

The country’s illiberal forces are just as opposed to allowing CT its financial freedom. And in the absence of action to protect the broadcaster, MPs from ANO and SPD are proposing that all pensioners be made exempt from paying fees.

“It’s another … attempt to starve the public media and … push them to future dependence on the state budget – de facto to nationalization and easy control and service of political interests,” states Robert Břešťan, editor at independent media outlet HlídacíPes.

The culture ministry is discussing options regarding the “sustainability of public media,” the spokesperson said, but noted that “increasing fees is not on the agenda”.

Alongside the failure to so far put in place a cohesive strategy for fighting disinformation or to reform the oversight of public media, that appears to leave Fiala’s promises of media reform still needing a shot in the arm.

This article is part of IPI’s reporting series “Media freedom in Europe in the shadow of Covid”, which comprises news and analysis from IPI’s network of correspondents throughout the EU. Articles do not necessarily reflect the views of IPI. This reporting series is supported by funding from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom and by the European Commisson (DG Connect) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response coalition.

Allgemein

How Slovak politicians did not learn from the murder…

How Slovak politicians did not learn from the murder of a journalist

Recent legal reforms show promise, yet discrediting attacks on journalists continue

By IPI contributor Beata Balogová, editor-in-chief of SME

Igor Matovič, the current finance minister of Slovakia and former prime minister, sailed to power on the wave of public anger and disappointment that in 2018 followed the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová.

“Permanent attacks on journalists, defamations, suggesting that journalists are anti-Slovak prostitutes and enemies of the nation” – Matovič listed the sins of former prime minister Robert Fico against the press in an official press release on the day the public learned about the murders. He blamed Fico for “creating an atmosphere” that resulted in the killing of a journalist.

Robert Fico made journalists who uncovered corruption scandals of his governments targets through his permanent attacks. In less than a month after the murders, he had to resign on the heel of massive anti-corruption protests.

In the following parliamentary elections in 2019, Matovič, who throughout his political career used findings of top investigative journalists to build an image of himself of an anti-corruption activist, defeated Fico and became the next prime minister.

But how did it happen that almost five years later Matovič is not far behind Fico when it comes to verbal attacks against journalists? Most recently Matovič likened critical journalists to propagandists of Adolf Hitler and suggested that journalists can be bought for 500 euros to write favorable stories about their client. On a live radio show he also said he would gradually take down the corrupt journalists.

Promises and reality

The bouquet of political promises over the grave of Jan and Martina included stronger protection for journalists. This should have partially materialized in a constitutional law granting a special status for journalists along with an equal approach of state institutions to private and state-owned or public media. This law would also curb the possibility of state intervention (such as nationalization) against private media, for example.

The draft of this law is still parked at the ministry of culture, and it is unlikely that this government will find enough political will to pass such legislation.

The parliament, however, in June 2022 did adopt a long-due package of media laws to replace the legislation that had been ignoring the existence of digital media. The beginnings were promising, with the process appearing to reflect what one would find in a press-freedom-conscious country. The ministry of culture consulted on the draft with publishers of key media and experts so that it creates equal ground for different types of media (print, digital, broadcast).

The ambition is to bring more transparency to media ownership by creating a register for media. The state can remove any media from the register if it is financed by someone from the UN sanction list. Media companies must report their sponsors and all financial donations over 1,200 euros annually to the state. The legislation also introduces regulation for video-sharing platforms.

However, in parliament the law became a victim of political bargaining. In a last-minute move, part of the ruling coalition conditioned the adoption of the law packages on the insertion of a “right of reply” for public officials who feel that a media report affects their privacy, honour or dignity into the legislation. This applies also to opinions if these rise from false information.

It was either with a right to statement or no legislation passed at all. Journalists felt that the right of statement was an act of revenge from the ruling coalition in response to journalists’ critical approach to the government and the way they fulfilled their watchdog role during the pandemic.

Inspiration from Orbán

In September 2022, the Ordinary People, the party of Matovič, unexpectedly and without any previous discussion submitted to the parliament a proposal to impose a levy on the largest private broadcasters. The public broadcaster would not pay such a levy under this proposed legislation. If adopted, the levy would be a discriminatory measure that directly threatens independent media and allows the state to make interventions into their operation, media lawyers and press freedom advocates have warned.

Many see behind the move an inspiration from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has been trying to suffocate the last television station that still broadcasts critical news, RTL Klub. Earlier this year Orbán announced the reintroduction of a tailor-made tax for broadcasters, like the one he had to kill four years ago after massive criticism from European institutions. Since the announcement, the government provided no further details, thus the broadcaster did not know what to expect. However, on October 19 the Orbán government said it will not collect the advertisement tax next year.

Matovič did not discuss this law with experts or the independent broadcasters.

Ján and Martina

It was clear from the day of the murder that some politicians would abuse the memory of Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová, using them for their own benefit. Matovič would often refer to Jan Kuciak when lashing out at independent media for criticizing his political performance.

When marking the anniversary of the murder in 2022, in a rather ambiguous statement, he said he wished that journalists become like Ján Kuciak. He publicly lashed out at Kuciak’s editor at Aktuality, Peter Bárdy, and said that he does not come anywhere close to Kuciak and only pretends to be his mentor. He called Bardy a shame.

Matovič had a chance to change the approach of politicians towards the media in Slovakia – not only in the sense of improving the legal environment but also cleaning the atmosphere of hate and verbal attacks. Instead, he sees himself as a victim of the media and compared his situation to those of Holocaust victims. The fact that he is now finance minister, and therefore wields signficiant influence in government, represents a challenge to the independent media as well: having to ponder when to react and when to ignore his attacks against the press.

Orbán succeeded in building elected autocracy in Hungary because he completely captured the press and significantly complicated the functioning of the independent media. Therefore, people in Slovakia should be disturbed by similar tendencies, including politicians describing the press as an organized criminal group or enemies of the nation.

Library

Malta: No substantial reform five years after Daphne Caruana…

Malta: No substantial reform five years after Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination

Systematic change remains elusive despite recent prosecution of hitmen brothers

By IPI contributor Elizabeth De Gaetano for The Shift News

Two days before the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, two brothers were each sentenced to 40 years in prison for their role in the journalist’s assassination.

Despite this significant turn of events, the fight for full justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia remains characterised by lengthy court delays, police inaction and a general lack of political will by the Maltese authorities to pass reforms that would help ensure journalists in Malta, an EU member state, can do their work safely.

It has been five years since Caruana Galizia was killed in a car bomb a few metres outside her home in Bidnija. Nevertheless, even as thousands gathered in Valletta this past October 16 to commemorate the journalist, the fight for justice, led by her family and a coalition of Maltese and international civil society groups and independent journalists, remains as gruelling as the day it began.

Three criminal convictions

Until recently, there had only been one criminal conviction in the murder case, that of Vincent Muscat, who was sentenced to 15 years for planting and detonating the bomb. Muscat negotiated a plea bargain that saw him become a state witness.

The two other men charged with executing the assassination, brothers George and Alfred Degiorgio, were still in pre-trial detention five years after their arrest in a dramatic raid at the port of Valletta in December 2017.

However, on October 14, at the start of the trial by jury that was being monitored by several international press freedom organisations, including the International Press Institute (IPI), the brothers changed their plea from “not guilty” to “guilty” mid-way through the first hearing. Malta’s Criminal Court sentenced each brother to 40 years in prison plus fines and the return of criminal proceeds related to the crime.

The brothers changed their plea mid-way through the court proceedings after having witnessed the assistant attorney general detail to the jurors how the police had traced burner phones that had been used in the murder to phones belonging to the Degiorgio brothers. Journalists and observers who had gone to court that day expecting to cover the trial over several weeks were presented with a dramatic turn of events that included unexplained delays and outbursts by the accused.

After the sentencing, Alfred Degiorgio was overheard telling a prison guard that he wanted to approach Caruana Galizia’s family, saying, “I want to give them the full truth from beginning to end if you want to know it”, but as the brothers tried to approach the family, they were stopped when the family refused to speak to them.

However, barely two weeks after the brothers’ sentencing, lawyers for the brothers then filed an appeal asking for their trial by jury to be held again, as well as for a reduction in their sentence.

Until the trial by jury, much of the delay in court proceedings was caused by the Degiorgio brothers filing over 100 preliminary pleas and several bids for an official pardon for their crimes in exchange for information, including about several Maltese politicians.

However, the conviction of the three assassins is only the beginning. Many local and international organisations, as well as Caruana Galizia’s family, have underscored that impunity for her assassination will only truly end when all those responsible for the journalist’s death, including other potential intermediaries and mastermind(s), are identified, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

On August 18, 2021, Yorgen Fenech, a Maltese casino boss with close ties to senior government officials, was indicted on charges of complicity in committing murder. The indictment claims that Fenech ordered and paid for the killing. He is currently in pre-trial detention.

The state is responsible – conclusions of a landmark public inquiry

Aside from the criminal proceedings, an independent public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Caruana Galizia’s killing concluded in July 2021 that the State “should bear the responsibility for the assassination”.

The government of Malta had initially resisted the idea of a public inquiry by claiming that there was no need for one since criminal proceedings were already underway.

It took a two-year campaign by civil society, NGOs, European institutions, and Caruana Galizia’s family for the Maltese authorities to finally announce, in December 2019, the panel of three judges that would lead the inquiry and examine the background that led to her assassination.

The three judges gathered evidence over a period of 18 months. They heard witness statements from investigators, politicians, persons from public administration and State entities, journalists, and Caruana Galizia’s extended family.

The report was published in July 2021 and found that the State “should bear the responsibility for the assassination” and added that her isolation and dehumanisation, coupled with the inaction of law enforcement and other authorities, helped create an atmosphere of impunity.

In other words, those who wanted to harm Caruana Galizia felt they could do so with the assurance that they would be protected.

A lack of transparency and ambition

The public inquiry report also made a series of wide-ranging recommendations for reform within the government and the police to improve the safety of journalists in Malta. Nevertheless, these recommendations have run into a lack of political will.

During an extraordinary parliamentary session to discuss the public inquiry’s conclusions, Prime Minister Robert Abela never committed to a plan or a timeline to implement the inquiry’s recommendations. Nor did he take up the technical assistance offered by several press freedom organisations to help the government with the implementation process.

A detailed analysis by The Shift news portal found that Malta’s government has only fully implemented one of the 28 key recommendations.

In the meantime, the government also shot down legislative proposals presented in parliament by the opposition, which were based on the public inquiry’s recommendations. It hastily set up a committee of media experts, which was given three months to submit their comments and suggestions on draft legislation prepared by the government.

But the limitations of the Maltese government’s legislative proposals had already been identified as far back as January, and the committee of media experts was never consulted during the drafting of the bills.

Even more problematic was that the government demanded that the committee keep their discussions confidential, excluding many media and journalism stakeholders.

In the end, the most significant recommendations by the committee were ignored. Draft legislation was tabled in parliament in early October, even though some of the proposed legal amendments relating to the safety of journalists and Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) failed to meet international standards.

More than a hundred Maltese journalists, academics, and artists wrote to Prime Minister Robert Abela, urging him to hold a public consultation exercise on the proposed legislation.

The prime minister defended the proposed legislation and insisted that the committee could have consulted with whomever it wished – despite correspondence published showing this was not the case. He added that the parliamentary debate would be another opportunity for the legislation to be amended if there is the need to do so.

Only after two Institute of Maltese journalists (IĠM) members threatened to withdraw from the committee of experts did the prime minister finally halt the parliamentary process and promise to open the legislation to public scrutiny.

Increasingly restrictive access to information

While all of this is taking place, and although Malta’s prime minister has publicly stated that he supports journalism, the overall attitude of most government officials towards independent journalists is still visibly hostile.

Independent journalists, activists, and government critics are still singled out and targeted by government propagandists on both the governing party’s media outlets and social media, while access to information in the public interest is getting harder.

The most representative example of this antagonistic attitude towards journalists is the 40 Freedom of Information (FOI) lawsuits brought against The Shift by several government entities.

In July 2021, Malta’s Data Protection Commissioner ruled in favour of 40 FOI requests filed by independent media outlet The Shift to investigate the government’s spending on advertising. Each government entity lodged an identical appeal against the Data Protection Commissioner’s decisions. In six of those cases, those entities that lost the request are now pursuing a second round of appeals against these decisions.

The scope of these appeals seems intended not to win but to exhaust The Shift’s time and resources while also sending a clear signal to other newsrooms that the Maltese government will challenge their attempts to obtain information under the country’s FOI law.

Even though Malta’s prime minister had stated that lessons needed to be drawn from the public inquiry report, the seeming lack of political will to initiate effective and broad legislative reforms casts doubt on whether Malta’s political class has learnt any lessons from Caruana Galizia’s assassination or whether it simply plans to give the impression that it intends to protect those who work towards continuing her legacy while surreptitiously making things harder.

This article was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries.

Event

Threats to independent public service media in Central Europe

24 November, 10:00 CET.

In the last few years, Central Europe has emerged as a regional flashpoint in the battle for the future of independent public service media in the European Union.

In Slovenia, editorial staff are currently in a stand-off with the management over what they say are politicised efforts to erode editorial independence. As internal disagreements escalate and strikes continue, the new government is pushing for legislative reforms which depoliticise Radiotelevizija Slovenija – and faces an upcoming referendum challenge by the opposition in doing so.

In the Czech Republic meanwhile, a country often lauded as the regional model for professional public service media, after years of sustained political pressure under the previous government of former PM Andrej Babiš, the new administration is close to passing legislation aimed at limiting political interference and shoring up the broadcaster’s institutional independence.

Two countries, with a shared set of pressures on independent public media, and similar initiatives by newly elected governments to pass democratic reforms.

In this webinar, speakers will discuss the latest developments in both countries, explore parallels in the challenges faced, and asses the ongoing legislative efforts to insulate their country’s public broadcasters against future illiberal attacks.

Moderator

Jamie Wiseman

Europe Advocacy Officer at International Press Institute (IPI)

Speakers

Ksenija Horvat

Journalist and broadcaster at Radiotelevizija Slovenija (RTV SLO)

Jan Bumba

Presenter at Czech National Radio (ČRo Plus).

Radka Betcheva

Head of Member Relations Central & Eastern Europe, European Broadcasting Union (EBU)

Allgemein

Italy: Journalists brace for impact as Giorgia Meloni’s new…

Italy: Journalists brace for impact as Giorgia Meloni’s new government begins

Questions over how new administration will handle press freedom challenges

By IPI contributor Christian Elia

“On World Press Freedom Day my thanks go to the many journalists who fight for the truth. We will always be at their side against all forms of censorship and imposition of the single thought.”

With these words Giorgia Meloni, leader of the Fratelli d’Italia party, commented on the anniversary of 3 May earlier this year.

Now, after Meloni was sworn in as prime minister of a hard-right government on October 23, international observers are questioning the position of Meloni and the main supporters of her party on freedom of the press and pondering how the administration will address the many challenges facing the country’s journalists.

The coalition government, in addition to Fratelli d’Italia, includes the Lega, led by Matteo Salvini, and Forza Italia, led by Silvio Berlusconi – figures with a problematic track record on media freedom.

With major European Union initiatives to safeguard media independence and pluralism on the horizon, and major reform initiatives within the country stalled, questions also emerge over how the new administration will handle more systemic changes to the legislative and media landscapes.

European inspirations

Meloni’s first international outing after the elections, with a speech at the VOX party meeting in Spain, caused much concern in the media world.

In front of an audience that had heard messages from former U.S. President Donald Trump, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Meloni reiterated how Poland and Hungary are models of government for her, glossing over the fact that both governments are currently facing sanctions proceedings under Article 7 of the EU Treaty for breaches of fundamental values.

Meloni has not only defended Hungary and Poland when she was in opposition, but also reiterated this approach as soon as she won the elections. Press freedom in both countries remains under serious pressure. There are major questions about how far she will take inspiration in governing from these ideological allies, and how far she will support them in democratic forums.

In general, looking at Meloni’s rhetoric, it seems clear that she is now trying to present herself as a moderate leader. However, she remains president of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), a pan-European umbrella party that includes the ruling party in Poland as well as increasingly influential far-right parties in countries such as Spain and Sweden.

In the past, Meloni has also spread and supported conspiracy theories on her social media channels, such as ethnic replacement by migrants and disinformation about vaccines. Unlike other far-right leaders in Europe, however, she has not publicly made hostile comments against journalists or the press in general. Under increased scrutiny and critical reporting from the media, this may yet change.

Her government’s approach to EU efforts to strengthen media freedom and pluralism will be another key issue. To date, she has never taken a position on the European Commission’s Media Freedom Act (EMFA) or other press freedom legislation. Only her actions in government will clarify her positions in Italy and Europe on these issues.

Another major issue on the agenda regarding media will be reform of the country’s penal code regarding “defamation through the press”, which can currently be punished with prison sentences from six months to three years. In the past two years, the Constitutional Court has urged lawmakers to initiate a comprehensive reform of defamation provisions and ruled that incarceration in such cases is unconstitutional. Until now, however, parliament has dragged its feet. Observers are concerned the new government appears unlikely to push forward the reform process.

Party problems

Meloni, while always defending her staunchest supporters, has been very careful not to attack freedom of the press directly, taking a cautious stance on the issue of journalists’ work, but not failing to emphasise that in her opinion there is a widespread desire to damage Fratelli d’Italia politically.

What is certain, however, is the attitude of many supporters of her party towards the press. Recent incidents of physical or verbal aggression against journalists can be traced back to extreme right-wing militants, however not directly linked to the Fratelli d’Italia party

The most notorious cases are those of journalist Federico Gervasoni, of the daily newspaper La Stampa, who was threatened with death on social networks for having carried out an investigation into the neo-fascist organisation Avanguardia Nazionale, where some current members of Fratelli d’Italia have operated in the past.

Then there is the case of the journalist Federico Marconi and the photographer Paolo Marchetti, of the weekly magazine L’Espresso, who were physically assaulted for filming during the commemoration by a group of neo-fascists of three right-wing militants murdered in the 1970s. For this attack, exponents of Forza Nuova, an organisation that supported Meloni for a period, were prosecuted by the Italian justice system, but has now distanced itself from her.

The latest episode is the persistent threats against Repubblica journalist Paolo Berizzi, known for his investigations into Italian neo-fascism.

Leading journalist unions and organisations – Ordine dei Giornalisti and the Federazione Nazionale della Stampa Italiana – have called for intervention by the political class in these cases.

Meloni and the party leaders immediately distanced themselves publicly and expressed solidarity with the affected journalists, but never definitively ended relations with the most radical part of her supporters.

Journalists’ safety

In recent years the Italian state has become a model with regard to the protection of journalists threatened by the mafia. Roberto Saviano is the best-known symbol of many journalists who have enjoyed not only physical protection, but also the support of civil society through awareness-raising campaigns.

Another major source of physical attacks and threats over the past 10 years, according to the Italian Order of Journalists, has been politically motivated attacks on the press from groups associated with the far and extreme right.

In order to guarantee the work of journalists and freedom of the press, press freedom groups have stressed that it is necessary for these attacks to not only be punished by the judiciary, but also to be recognised as systematic attacks, so that the Ministry of the Interior and the police, who must protect journalists during these public events and in general, are constantly vigilant.

Whether the new occupants of the Ministry of Interior will continue the important work laid down by previous administrations will be vital for the safety of journalists in Italy moving forward.

Media ownership

With respect to the concentration of media ownership, currently Meloni’s leadership team in Fratelli d’Italia does not represent any particular editorial interests.

However, the former deputy Guido Crosetto, an executive of the company Federazione Aziende Italiane per l’Aerospazio, la Difesa e la Sicurezza (AIAD), linked to Confindustria (the trade representation of Italian industrialists), is the one Meloni will be counting on to obtain the support of industrial groups with interests in the media, which until now have never explicitly supported Meloni in her political rise. Crosetto was appointed Minister of Defence in the Meloni government.

Ever since Silvio Berlusconi entered politics in the 1990s, the problem of media freedom arose because the leader of Forza Italia could count on control of important Italian media. Since then, many things have changed and Berlusconi has reduced his role in media, selling the newspaper Il Giornale and negotiating the sale of the Mediaset TV networks.

Today, in the absence yet of a definitive law on the control of the media by politicians, which even the Democratic Party has never achieved, Guido Crosetto seems to be the mediator between the industrial groups and the media they control.

Until now, Giorgia Meloni, as former leader of the opposition and as party leader, has never expressed any particular indications with respect to a whole series of Italian and international regulations on the subject of freedom of the press. Generally, Meloni has preferred communication linked to social networks over mainstream media.

As the new government takes the reins, many of these questions will become apparent. Until then, journalists are preparing for a bumpy ride.

Library

Slovakia: Government pushes ahead with ambitious media reform program

New laws on source protection and media ownership transparency provide model for neighbouring countries

By IPI contributor Miroslava Kernová, Omediach.com

In recent months Slovakia has passed important legislative changes which will ensure a better media environment and move the country closer to standards outlined by the recently published European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).

Moreover, in addition to the laws already passed, others are in preparation. If the full package is achieved, Slovakia can become a leading example of press freedom for other EU countries, such as Hungary or Poland, where press freedom continues to face major challenges from media capture.

In its program statement (2020-24), the current government promised a complex reform which would reflect modern changes in the media environment. The changes this reform introduces and proposes are revolutionary by Slovak standards.

The problem with previous Slovak media legislation was that it did not reflect the online environment, titled the scales in favour of political forces, and allowed ways for these forces to influence public media.

The motivation for the change is also public pressure for better protection of journalists after the brutal murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his girlfriend Martina Kušnírová in 2018.

Reforms passed already

In August, the parliament passed a new Act on Media and the Act on Publications, replacing two outdated laws, the Press Act and the Compulsory Copies Act.

These new laws strengthen the protection of journalists, extend source protection to online media, and bring greater transparency to media ownership and funding, which strengthens their credibility against media disseminating disinformation.

Firstly, under the new Act on Media and Act on Publications, the right to protect the confidentiality of sources – which was in the past only guaranteed for broadcast and print media journalists – has been extended to include journalists from online media.

Secondly, media outlets must also declare any investor or donor who invests more than €2,000 per year. This change should make the media environment in Slovakia more transparent. A number of anonymous sources of disinformation, pro-Russian or politically motivated websites operating in Slovakia would have to declare their real “final beneficiaries” in a public register, which will allow anyone to verify whose is behind these outlets. For non-compliance with this obligation, media may receive a warning or a fine of up to €20,000.

Thirdly, the new law also strengthens the protection of minors, improves access to audio-visual content for the disabled by increasing quotas for multimodal access, and specifically promotes broadcasting for national minorities and ethnic groups in public service broadcasting.

It also regulates the conditions for television and radio, regardless of whether they broadcast standardly or online, and introduces several rights and obligations for television and radio. Every viewer will now be able to find out who owns a given medium and there will be a register where all the information will be available. This will be administered by the Ministry of Culture, which is to establish the register within 30 months of the adoption of the law.

In addition, the law redefines general rules for advertising in both public and private media and, in line with European requirements, introduces the notion of community periodicals into the Slovak legislation and allows for the application of self-regulatory mechanisms.

Last minute amendments from politicians

The downside of the new media laws, however, is that MPs in the last steps of finalising the legislation process introduced a “right to expression” for public officials into it, thus securing for themselves more media space than ordinary citizens. The right to expression for public officials was only included in the bill at the end of the second reading in parliament – as amendments by MPs from Sme rodina and OĽaNO.

“Politicians have their channels of communication. The most followed profiles on social networks belong to politicians, they express themselves in press conferences that are broadcast. So there is no reason for a politician to exercise his right to express himself in the exercise of his public office,” media lawyer Tomáš Kamenec told the daily SME.

In the original draft law, the right to expression could only be used to deny, supplement, clarify or explain factual allegations. Parliament eventually approved amendments that extended the right to expression to value judgments based (columns or opinion pieces) on disputed claims.

Alexej Fulmek from the Association of Print and Digital Media (ATDM) and CEO of the Petit Press publishing house considers the adoption of the “right to expression” as a step backwards. “Unfortunately, politicians in Slovakia are mostly under the impression that the media are causing harm to this country and that they are the ones who have to fight them. They don’t understand that the role of the media is to be critical, especially towards politicians. In this atmosphere the idea prevailed that politicians need some ‘stick’ against the media. This probably seemed to them as an adequate solution,” Fulmek told Strategie magazine.

Increasing protection for journalists

Additional planned changes deal with the protection of journalists. Draft amendments to the Criminal Code would remove the long-criticised prison sentence for defamation, which has been a major threat to journalists in Slovakia for years. Under the current law, defamation carries a prison sentence of two to eight years. Under the new legislation, defamation would not carry a prison sentence.

The planned amendment to the criminal code also introduces so-called “special motives” for crimes, which will include a crime committed against someone for exercising of their job, profession or function. This may contribute to better protection of journalists and other professions (doctors, teachers, security forces…) who face many threats and can face attacks in their work. A crime committed with a specific motive will carry higher penalty.

For now, the draft of this law remains parked at the ministry of culture. Questions remain over whether the government will find the political will to pass such legislation.

Further changes planned

The Ministry of Justice has also proposed amendments to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The amendment expands both the scope of information to be provided and the persons obliged to provide it. For example, the draft also extends the list of companies that are obliged to provide information to state-owned companies and second- and third-tier subsidiaries of state-owned companies, which are not covered by the current law.

The proposal also extends the mandatory disclosure of information to persons seeking public office as well as to public officials themselves. It also introduces an obligation to publish all amendments to contracts subject to mandatory publication.

The Ministry of Culture wants to implement the PersVeilig (Press Safe) platform for greater protection of journalists in Slovakia, following the example of the Netherlands.

In 2019, the PersVeilig platform was launched in the Netherlands to improve the safety of journalists. The platform was also created because although journalists faced threats, they often did not report them because they felt they were not sufficiently dealt with by the police. PersVeilig improves cooperation between journalists, their employers, the police and prosecutors.

The Slovak Ministry of Culture wants to work with the Netherlands to improve the protection of journalists domestically. “We are not talking about whether it should be an organisation, a platform, a technical or procedural solution. What we want is to reach a concrete result that can be implemented and traced,” said Radoslav Kutaš, the ministry’s state secretary, told Denník N.

If all these plans are indeed implemented, Slovakia will meet many of the requirements of the European Media Freedom Act regarding of the protection of media pluralism and independence, and in some respects may even go beyond them, such as the ambition to create a special platform to protect journalists.

Challenges remain

Despite many positive ambitions, the media environment in Slovakia continues to face problems. Journalists, especially those from the opinion-making media, are constantly targets of verbal attacks from politicians, mainly from former Prime Minister Igor Matovic, but also from the opposition.

For example, the deputy chairman of the opposition Smer party, Ľuboš Blaha, regularly dehumanises journalists. Matovič, who leads the biggest party in parliament, also regularly attacks journalists on his Facebook page and recently accused unspecified media of corruption, “spreading lies” and compared the work of Slovak journalists to Nazi propaganda.

In Slovakia, the problematic environment for independent public service media also remains a major issue. The main problem is that both the director and the supervisory boards of Slovak Radio and Television (RTVS) are elected in parliament after political agreements are made. Politicians still have influence over the funding of public service media. Changes need to be made to guarantee that public service media management and funding are more independent and more resistant to political pressures.

Even if the political will is there, the road ahead contains multiple pitfalls. The forthcoming changes may be stalled by the current unstable political situation that brings about the possibility of the fall of the current government and of early national parliamentary elections, which may result in a government of such parties that do not favour the idea of a free media.

However, if the planned changes are passed, Slovakia would take major steps forward in strengthening the legal frameworks for media freedom and provide a positive example to follow for other EU Members States in Central and Eastern Europe in the years to come.

Event

Justice Delayed: Insights from Impunity Cases Across Europe

Justice Delayed:

Insights from Impunity Cases Across Europe

10 November, 11:00 CET.

The Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists currently states that there are 26 ongoing cases of impunity for the murder of journalists in Europe.

We know that to bring an end to these heinous crimes, those who commit them cannot walk free. Indifference towards the seriousness of these crimes helps cultivate a culture of impunity in Europe and stands in the way of justice. But what would full justice look like in these cases? And how can we work together to achieve it?

Throughout this webinar, we will hear from speakers with close ties to journalists who paid the ultimate price for their vital and critical reporting. Through this conversation, we hope to understand what true justice will look like, how it can be achieved, and what needs to be done to halt the culture of impunity for crimes against journalists in Europe.

Moderator

Flutura Kusari

Senior Legal Advisor, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

Speakers

Corinne Vella

Sister of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Head of Media Relations at the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

Lukáš Diko

Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of the Jan Kuciak Investigative Center

George Gavalas

Vice-President of the Executive Board of the Journalists’ Union of Athens Daily Newspapers

Library

Italy: Concern about prosecutor’s demand for prison sentence for…

Italy: Concern about prosecutor’s demand for prison sentence for three journalists in response to their factual reporting

The undersigned media freedom and journalist associations today express shared concern over an Italian prosecutor’s request for a six-month prison sentence in a case of defamation through the press involving three journalists.

The lawsuit had been filed in response to their reporting on a labour lawsuit associated with a former minister. Prison sentences in cases of defamation through the press have been declared unconstitutional by the Italian Constitutional Court in 2021, except for cases of exceptional gravity. No journalist should face nor fear prison sentences for having published factual information in the public interest.

The lawsuit against the three journalists was initiated in 2014 by Teresa Bellanova, current president of political party Italia Viva who at the time was undersecretary of the Ministry of Labour. The three journalists – Mary Tota from Il Fatto Quotidiano, Danilo Lupo from La7 and Francesca Pizzolante from Il Tempo – were sued for criminal defamation through the press by Bellanova in 2014, for their respective reporting about a labour lawsuit that had been filed against her by a former press officer.

In response to the lawsuit she received, Bellanova initially accused the press officer and the three journalists of complicity in attempted extortion, a charge which was later downgraded to defamation through the press for the journalists. More than eight years later, the defamation trial against the members of the press is not over.

In the latest hearing on 17 October, prosecutor Antonio Zito requested a six months’ prison sentence for each of the three journalists. Their reporting at the time was simply about the filing of the lawsuit and the allegations made, which have since been confirmed by the Lecce Court of Appeal. The next hearing is scheduled for 14 November 2022, when, following the rebuttal of the journalists’ lawyer Roberto Eustachio Sisto, judge Michele Guarini will issue his decision.

The prospect of having to face a prison sentence together with the protracted nature of this lawsuit has inevitably resulted in a chilling effect: this is what has been reported by journalist Danilo Lupo, who admitted that he has been refraining from reporting on any issues related to Bellanova over the past eight years.

The case of the three journalists facing prison sentences draws once more attention to the severe deficiencies in Italy’s defamation laws. According to the Italian criminal code, defamation through the press can be punished with prison sentences from six months to three years. However, in the past two years, the Constitutional Court had made public its position by urging lawmakers to initiate a comprehensive reform of defamation provisions and ruling that incarceration in such cases is unconstitutional and should be envisioned exclusively in criminal defamation cases of “exceptional severity”.

Joining the dissent expressed by Italian journalists organisations, the undersigned media freedom and journalist associations urge the competent authorities to immediately drop their demand for prison sentences for the journalists in the Bellanova case, in line with the pronouncements of the Constitutional Court. We also urge the new parliament to swiftly enact a comprehensive reform of both civil and criminal defamation laws in Italy and emphasise the need to meet European freedom of expression standards. We will continue to monitor the unfolding of the legal proceedings of the Lecce court and call on relevant authorities to react to the case.

Signed by:

OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
International Press Institute (IPI)
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
ARTICLE 19 Europe
The Good Lobby