Blog

Library

Turkey: Press freedom crisis deepens amid earthquake and national…

Turkey: Press freedom crisis deepens amid earthquake and national elections

The partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today publish the findings of an international press freedom mission to Turkey in a report titled “Press freedom crisis deepens amid earthquake and national elections”.

The report, which details the findings of an international press freedom mission to Turkey in October 2023, focuses on the challenges facing independent and critical journalism in Turkey in 2023, a year marked by the tragic February earthquakes and the parliamentary and presidential elections in May.

 

The mission included meetings with editors, journalists, local civil society groups, Constitutional Court officials, broadcast regulator Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) members, and representatives of opposition political parties. The mission was convened by the International Press Institute (IPI) and was joined by representatives from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Read the report

This mission report was coordinated as part of IPI’s #FreeTurkeyJournalists campaign and in cooperation with Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners. The MFRR is a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors, and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Malta risks missing the opportunity to safeguard journalists

Malta risks missing the opportunity to safeguard journalists

By IPI contributor Elizabeth De Gaetano

On October 2, Prime Minister Robert Abela announced that he would publish a white paper on proposed laws for the media in Malta. This declaration came as he tabled in Parliament the final report of the Committee of Media Experts he had appointed last year to advise on reforming media laws in Malta.

Government officials touted this announcement as the culmination of a transparent and inclusive public consultation towards unprecedented reforms to safeguard the media in Malta following the death of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb in Malta on October 16, 2017, and, to date, three men have been convicted, and three other suspects await trial, including the alleged mastermind.

Two years following her death and after pressure from the Caruana Galizia family, civil society and international media freedom organisations, the government commissioned a public inquiry to investigate the circumstances that led to her death.

In its 2021 report, the public inquiry found the state had to “shoulder responsibility” for Caruana Galizia’s death because it had created an “atmosphere of impunity”. It had also failed to take reasonable steps to protect her. The report went on to make critical recommendations for legislative reform within the establishment and within the police to fight corruption and improve the safety of journalists.

Two years after receiving the final report of the public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Malta has yet to address the systemic failures that led to the journalist’s death.

Malta’s government has still only fully implemented one of the 28 key recommendations, which it proceeded to mishandle.

The Caruana Galizia inquiry report recommended setting up a Committee of Media Experts that was meant to examine the state of journalism and the fundamental right of freedom of expression. The committee was to produce specific recommendations that parliament would consider in a brief timeframe.

Instead, the government set up a Committee of Media Experts to advise on legislation already drafted rather than to advise the government during the drafting process. And ever since the Committee was set up, the entire two-year consultative process has been characterised by opacity and controversy, leaving journalists no better protected than before.

As journalists and civil society await the publication of the white paper and the details included within, there is some concern that this major opportunity for meaningful reform which better protects journalists could be lost, and that one element of the legacy many hoped to secure after the tragic murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia could be undermined.

 

A fraught and opaque process

Work to reform the laws governing Maltese media began in January 2022 after the government rejected legislative proposals presented in parliament by the opposition that were based on the public inquiry’s recommendations.

Instead, the government announced that it had appointed an eight-person committee to assess local laws and advise on improving them. The committee was given three months to submit their comments and suggestions on the draft legislation already prepared by the government.

The committee was never consulted during the drafting of the bills. It was also instructed to keep their discussions confidential, which led to criticism of the journalists who formed part of the Committee representing Malta’s Press Association.

The Committee of Media Experts submitted its first recommendations and proposals in June 2022. But the report was not made public until late September when Justice Minister Jonathan Attard presented the government’s proposals at a press conference.

Legal experts immediately identified several deficiencies in the Maltese government’s legislative proposals.

For example, a proposed amendment that seeks to protect the heirs of a deceased author or editor in defamation cases still raises concerns about the ability of publishers to defend against such allegations should a plaintiff decide to pursue their case against a publisher.

In addition, the proposed amendments address Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) by empowering Maltese courts to dismiss baseless cases. Damages in SLAPP suits from foreign courts can be capped locally, and local courts can disregard foreign judgments in such suits. However, the proposed legislation falls short of international recommendations, leaving journalists in Malta vulnerable to SLAPP threats.

 

About to miss an opportunity?

After unveiling the draft bills, over a hundred Maltese journalists, academics, and artists wrote to Prime Minister Robert Abela, urging him to hold a public consultation on the proposed legislation.

The prime minister initially resisted but eventually agreed to halt the legislative process to allow the media experts committee to consult the broader media sector.

The same committee, whose main recommendations had already been ignored and which the government blamed for the lack of consultation, was then tasked with consulting the public and returning with a revised set of recommendations.

The committee submitted its second report to the government last July. Malta’s Parliament had closed for the summer recess by then, allowing the government to keep the report under wraps until October 2 when it was tabled in the House of Representatives.

Proposals made by the committee include creating a system of transparent public funding for media houses, binding public authorities to provide information to journalists within a reasonable time, and constitutionally protecting journalists from revealing their sources.

These elements of the proposed reforms have been cautiously welcomed by media freedom groups, who stress that the devil will be in the detail of the proposed amendments, as well as the strictness of their implementation.

The committee also proposed amendments to the law protecting journalists from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, allowing them to be dismissed early on in the court proceedings and recommended the removal of terms such as journalist, author or editor and extending the protection from SLAPPs to other possible targets, including NGOs and activists.

It also advised the government to empower magistrates who rule against a SLAPP case to order the payment of damages to the person or entity targeted by the SLAPP suit.

In its report, committee members noted that the government had again ignored its central original proposal, namely imposing an explicit obligation upon authorities to provide access to information within a reasonable time via Freedom of Information (FOI) requests..

There were also several recommendations, including those by international press freedom organisations, that the Media Committee should have considered in this second round of recommendations.

The committee did not introduce specific criteria for identifying a SLAPP suit and maintained the process of acknowledging foreign judgments that comply with the third country’s law. Experts, therefore, believe that in their current form, the suggested anti-SLAPP provisions will do little to deter plaintiffs from filing SLAPP suits.

When the report was tabled in parliament on October 2, Prime Minister Abela also announced that he would publish a white paper with the proposed laws for the media in Malta but gave no indication when this would be.

Given how fraught and protracted the entire consultation process has been, the white paper feedback may be the last chance to push for more ambitious legislation to create an enabling environment for public participation in Malta or risk being stuck with sub-optimal laws that will do little to change the status quo.

As the wait for the white paper continues, determination remains firm amongst media, journalists and international organisations to push for the best possible media laws for Malta, and the improvement in press freedom that such reforms would bring.

This article was commissioned by IPI as part of 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. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Hungary: Draft Sovereignty Protection Act poses fresh threat to…

Hungary: Draft Sovereignty Protection Act poses fresh threat to independent media

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today alerts the European Union about the chilling impact that the Hungarian ruling party’s proposed Sovereignty Protection Act will have on what remains of the country’s embattled independent media community.

Our organisations stress that while media are not named directly within the text of the draft bill, the intentionally vague language and broad scope for application of the proposed law would effectively open the door to state-sponsored pressure on those media which receive foreign funding and produce journalism critical of the government.

 

The draft Sovereignty Protection Act is therefore the latest prong of a decade-long campaign by the government of Prime Minister Victor Orbán to harass critics and suppress democratic checks and balances. This has been effected in part through measures that restrict, punish, and stigmatize critical journalism and NGOs that are deemed to be hostile to national interests.

 

The bill, submitted to parliament on 21 November, would establish a new office headed by an individual appointed directly by the Prime Minister with a six-year mandate. Its main task would be to map and report on perceived threats to Hungary’s national sovereignty and identify bodies or individuals suspected of serving malign foreign interests. All foreign funding of parties’ election campaigns would be criminalised.

 

This new office would have broad investigatory powers to demand documents, financial records or data of any organisation or body operating in Hungary, including civil society groups, media organisations or journalist associations. It would publish public reports about these bodies’ allegedly negative impact on Hungarian public discourse or politics, with a focus on election periods. Organisations adjudged to be undermining national sovereignty could be unofficially labelled as such by the body in its reports.

 

While media and media activities are not referenced directly in the text, the vague language of the bill means it could easily be applied to media organisations and individual journalists. Within the current parameters, any media receiving foreign funding could be accused of undermining Hungarian sovereignty by spreading “disinformation”, carrying out activities which are “aimed at influencing the democratic debate” or “aimed at influencing the will of voters”. Domestic media freedom groups registered in Hungary could be included within the scope of the law, while international media freedom organisations carrying out work in the country could also be stigmatised in reports by the proposed Sovereignty Protection Office. Although it will be tasked with preparing recommendations, the body would have no legal powers to issue sanctions.

 

Government figures have indicated that the objective of the law is purely to stop domestic political actors from accepting foreign funds. However, when the bill was first announced, a leading Fidesz politician said that among other intended targets were so-called “dollar media” and “Soros media” – pejorative terms used to label media receiving money from the U.S. or European Union.

 

The bill therefore fits against the backdrop of a campaign of stigmatisation since the 2022 general election, and beyond, against media which receive foreign grants and funding. Last year, an organisation close to the government published a report examining the funding structure of several of the leading independent media, suggesting they were serving foreign interests. If this new body were to become operational, it would hang like a sword over the independent media and NGOs and represent an institutionalised escalation of pressure over acceptance of foreign funds.

 

Over the past decade, as numerous reports have documented, the Fidesz government has deliberately distorted the media market to weaken the finances of independent media. This has included abusing state advertising, pressuring private advertisers, engaging in smear campaigns against independent media and other tactics that drive readers away, using state funds to bankroll otherwise economically unviable pro-government media, and selectively applying competition law. Numerous independent outlets did not survive this onslaught, either closing or being sold off to pro-government owners. Those independent media that remain have been forced to modify their business models toward subscription systems and grants from foreign donors in order to survive and continue their watchdog work. This bill and the attacks on foreign funding must therefore be seen as the latest effort to undermine the business models and financial sustainability of the independent press.

 

The dire conditions for media freedom and independent journalism in Hungary have been constructed by the Fidesz government over the past decade under the eyes of the European Union. For too long, nothing was done to challenge the anti-pluralistic consolidation of a pro-government media bubble and the slow eradication of bastions of professional journalism through regulatory abuses and the politically-engineered takeovers of media houses. While the EU’s draft European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) does represent a principled effort to safeguard media pluralism and freedom in Member States, its fate remains uncertain.

 

As the debate continues in the Hungarian parliament, the EU must not flinch in its opposition to this bill. If the package of amendments is ultimately passed and the constitution and criminal code are changed by the parliament with Fidesz’s two-thirds majority, plans should already be in place for the EU Commission to launch infringement proceedings against Hungary and challenge the law in the EU courts. Even if the bill is never passed, the text and its proposed measures will have a chilling effect in the signal they send. We jointly call on the Hungarian government to scrap the bill and refrain from all forms of pressure on the media and NGOs.

 

In the coming weeks, our MFRR consortium partner ARTICLE 19 Europe will prepare a thorough legal assessment of the law’s alignment with European law and international media freedom standards. This will outline in detail the severity of the threat posed by the draft Sovereignty Protection Act to media and civil society organisations. Our organisations remain committed to protecting what remains of independent and pluralistic journalism in Hungary.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI) 
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe 
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU) 
  • 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 and candidate countries. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

North Macedonia: Ruling against Investigative Reporting Lab and its…

North Macedonia: Ruling against Investigative Reporting Lab and its editor must be overturned

The organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and the SafeJournalists Network (SJN) today express shared dismay at a recent defamation verdict by a judge in North Macedonia which recommends shutting down one of the country’s leading investigative media outlets and expects this damaging ruling to be swiftly overturned on appeal.

Our organisations warn that this ruling – and the alarming recommendation by the judge – represent a clear violation of international standards, a fundamental failure of the recognition of public interest of the journalism in question, and an attack on investigative journalism and media freedom in the country.

On 24 October 2023, a judge at the Basic Civil Court in the capital Skopje ruled against the Investigative Reporting Laboratory (IRL) and its editor-in-chief, Sashka Cvetkovska, and ordered they pay a symbolic €1 in damages to businessman Kocho Angjushev, the former Deputy Prime Minister of North Macedonia, plus thousands of euros for both sides’ legal costs. 

However, in the written justification, published on 10 November, the judge inexplicably ruled that IRL should be classified as “non-media” and that its staff were “members of a group”, rather than professional journalists. She suggested the platform was operating illegally and recommended that the Ministry of Justice examine the operations of the media outlet.

The civil defamation lawsuit stemmed from a documentary IRL aired in May 2021, entitled “Conspiracy Against the Air”. The documentary, part of a joint investigation with the OCCRP,  was broadcasted on public television and revealed how chemical-filled fuel oil used in heating systems throughout the country’s public institutions were causing pollution. It briefly named Angjushev as one of the officials involved in making introductions between buyers and sellers of heating systems, which he denies and claims is defamatory. 

In the first hearing in March 2022, the judge Jovanka Spirovska Paneva ruled in favour of IRL and rejected Angjushev claims. After the verdict was challenged, the Court of Appeal in May 2022 dismissed the verdict and ordered a retrial. In the retrial, the same judge excluded the public from monitoring the trial, sided with Angjushev and found the defendants guilty of defamation. No new evidence was presented by the plaintiff during the retrial.

IRL, a member centre of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), will appeal the latest ruling to a higher court. It said it also intends to file a complaint with the constitutional court over the alleged violation of the constitutional right to freedom of the press.

The MFRR and SJN organisations stand firmly behind the Investigative Reporting Laboratory, Sashka Cvetkovska, and her staff, and support their principled legal challenge against this ruling and its serious consequences for investigative journalism in North Macedonia. This case bears some characteristics of a SLAPP — a strategic lawsuit against public participation – which are wielded by powerful business or political figures and are aimed at muzzling public interest journalism. It should be noted that the lawsuit by Angjushev comes against a backdrop of years-long attempts to pressure, discredit and verbally attack the media outlet and its staff.

While the demands for compensation and damages ordered by the judge were symbolic, the payment of the legal fees of both sides will represent a financial hit for the investigative media platform. The penalising nature of the verdict also carries a censorious chilling effect on the journalistic community in North Macedonia. As outlined in a recent report following a mission to Skopje by multiple international press freedom organisations, abusive lawsuits of this kind risk undermining the fragile press freedom progress achieved in recent years.

Furthermore, the judge’s verdict inaccurately claims that the IRL is not a media outlet and that its staff are not journalists. In fact, like many investigative media across the region, IRL is legally registered as a civil society organisation and has a specific mandate to report on issues such crime, corruption and good governance. It is clear that the verdict does not take into account the functional definition of journalism: an activity that can be exercised by everyone, as highlighted by the UN Human Rights Committee and by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. 

IRL has been responsible for much of the most high-quality investigative journalism in North Macedonia in the last half decade and has published award-winning investigations. Its reporters are highly professional journalists who, along with other investigative mediums, fulfil a vital watchdog role which is lacking in the wider media landscape.

The recommendation by the judge that the Ministry of Justice shut down IRL therefore represents both an incorrect and dangerous attack on investigative journalism in North Macedonia. This ruling should be overturned as quickly as possible on appeal and legal rulings involving matters of journalistic freedoms should be assessed with full respect for international standards and jurisprudence.

The Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM) submitted a complaint to the Judicial Council about Judge Spirovska Paneva for a disciplinary violation over unprofessional and negligent performance of the judicial function. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and the Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM) publicly reacted to the court verdict from October 24 and expressed support to the IRL and Cvetkovska.

The MFRR stands ready to offer financial support to cover the legal costs of challenging its ruling in the higher court and calls for increased international attention and solidarity over this worrying attempt to shut down one of North Macedonia’s finest independent media platforms.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • SafeJournalists Network (SJN)

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 and candidate countries. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Serb Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Milorad Dodik Library

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Republika Srpska president Dodik verbally attacks…

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Republika Srpska president Dodik verbally attacks journalist

The undersigned partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) today condemn the insulting and threatening behaviour of the President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, towards journalist Snezana Mitrović and her employer N1 television. We call on the politician to publicly apologise and end all intimidating practices against all media in the future.

Our organisations further warn that this aggressive rhetoric towards a member of the media, and indications of state monitoring of media, are the latest examples in a decades-long list of pressure by Dodik against journalists and independent media in the Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As outlined following a recent mission to the country organised by the MFRR, this hostility towards critical journalism in Republika Srpska – particularly from Dodik himself – poses a threat to media freedom and is contributing to insecurity amongst the journalistic community.

The outburst against Mitrović, a reporter with channel N1 television, stemmed from a press conference on November 16 in which she had asked Dodik a question about his connections to a number of individuals recently arrested in a drug trafficking operation by police.

At the press conference, Dodik reacted aggressively and accused her television station N1 of lying, pursuing an “anti-Serbian narrative” and actively seeking to “destroy” Republika Srpska. He then grabbed the microphone out of her hand in an inappropriate manner and threatened the N1 team by telling them: “Do you think we don’t have a service that follows what you are doing?”.

After the event, Mitrović received a personal phone call from Dodik in which he shouted at her again and insulted her using curse words, N1 reported. Dodik told her he was unhappy at the news report which N1 had published about the press conference.

Our organisations condemn the threatening and dangerous language used by Dodik at both the press conference and that used during the phone call, which represents an unacceptable verbal attack on a professional journalist.

Unfortunately, this type of behaviour has continued with impunity for years. Dodik has repeatedly labelled critical journalists as traitors and enemies of the state, and made threats against them, including multiple verbal attacks on female journalists. When questioned about this rhetoric, government officials play down the matter. In reality, this language is aimed at isolating and discrediting those who continue to ask sensitive questions and hold power to account. It also normalises wider attacks on members of the press by citizens in Republika Srpska and beyond.

Our organisations support the BH Journalists Association in its consideration of legal options, including the possible filing of a criminal report. The suggestion that government entities are monitoring the work of N1 and potentially other independent media in the country must also be addressed with the utmost seriousness and a potential investigation.

The MFRR and SEEMO welcome the swift response of domestic and regional media associations in condemning the verbal attack against Mitrović and offering support. Our organisations stand behind Snezana Mitrović, her media outlet N1, and all those journalists in Republika Srpska who continue to carry out her public service mission and ask tough questions in an increasingly hostile climate.

We jointly call on Milorad Dodik to apologise publicly for his behaviour and to publicly commit to ensuring that all future communication with and about journalists will be conducted in a professional manner befitting the stature of the public office he holds.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • 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 and candidate countries. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Poland: Media freedom reform faces obstacles after opposition victory

Poland: Media freedom reform faces obstacles after opposition victory

After coming first in the parliamentary elections on October 15, Poland’s centrist opposition parties, led by Donald Tusk’s Civic Coalition, look set to form a coalition government in the weeks ahead.

After eight years of rule by the hard-right conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, the new government will have a full plate as it sets out to rebuild Poland’s democratic pillars, from the courts to the state-owned media. The change in government could also usher in broader changes to the media landscape.

In the years after PiS came to power in 2015, the media freedom situation in Poland deteriorated sharply amidst an attack on critical and independent media.

The state-owned media was one of the government’s first targets: PiS swiftly pushed through legislation that allowed it to assert control over the country’s public broadcaster and established a National Media Council tasked with appointing the management of state-owned broadcaster TVP, Polish Radio and the PAP news agency.

These efforts to control the media extended to private media outlets too; for example, state-controlled oil company PKN Orlen purchased the country’s largest regional newspaper publisher Polska Press from its German owner in 2021, which resulted in most of the newspapers’ editors then being replaced and a marked switch in editorial lines favourable to PiS.

As outlined in a recent report by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) produced ahead of the election, these pressures by PiS came on top of multi-pronged campaign of regulatory, financial and legislative pressure aimed at undermining the influence of major media critical of the government, including the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).

While hopes are high this democratic opening in Poland will lead to a positive reform of the media landscape in line with EU values and roll back the media capture campaign of the previous government, the path forward is strewn with pitfalls and obstacles.

 

Spotlight on TVP

As the three opposition groupings — Tusk’s Civic Coalition, Third Way (an alliance of the agrarian Polish People’s Party and the centrist Poland 2050), and the Left — work on a coalition agreement, the spotlight is on TVP, which is notorious for its pro-Law and Justice coverage.

As the OSCE noted after the elections this fall, its “distorted and openly partisan coverage” helped provide a clear advantage to the ruling party. The MFRR report also highlighted the role of TVP in parroting the PiS party line and attacking the opposition parties.

Even before they won the elections, opposition leaders had indicated that it would be a priority for them if they came to power. “We will need exactly 24 hours for PiS government television to turn into public television,” said Tusk, who is expected to head the new government, at a pre-election rally in September.

However, in reality the process for reform looks set to take longer. The new government will have to reckon with the National Media Council, whose members’ term does not end until 2028. It is not simply a matter of changing the law: any attempts by the new parliamentary majority to amend media legislation could be blocked by President Andrzej Duda, who hails from PiS but left the party when he was elected president in 2015, using his right to veto. For this reason, an alternative approach is reportedly being considered: placing the public media in a state of liquidation, in which case they would be managed by receiverships – a form of compulsory administration – which the NMC would be unable to dismiss.

“A lot of things can be done without changing the existing laws, on the basis of currently existing law and with a parliamentary majority,” said Szymon Hołownia, the leader of the Poland 2050 party, in a conversation with Super Express broadcast on October 30, referring to the public media.

In this context, the National Media Council warned in a statement published on October 27 that “an attempt to undermine the laws, e.g. by repealing resolutions on the appointment of members of the National Broadcasting Council and the National Media Council, who have a statutory six-year term of office, by liquidating public media companies, or by any other means that circumvents the statutory procedure, will be a violation of the law and the Constitution. The very announcement of the liquidation of the public media is an act to the detriment of Polish culture and raison d’état.”

As outlined by IPI in a previous analysis, the NMC – a body established by PiS after a controversial change to the media law – has been an integral part of the institutional machinery of media capture which PiS has constructed in the last few years. While the PiS-dominated body seems determined to dig in and block democratic reform to the broadcasters it oversees, addressing the broadcaster’s spread of disinformation and party propaganda is seen as being vital moving forward.

However, the mechanisms used by the opposition to do so will be closely scrutinized by the EU. Media freedom groups will be urging the future government to ensure that any changes are enacted in a democratic and legal manner and aimed at restoring editorial and institutional independence to both the public media and its oversight bodies.

Rather than simply repeat the cycle of politicized purges and replacements enacted by previous administrations on both the left and right, the future government will face calls to ensure systemic reforms which reduce the influence of all ruling parties to meddle in the broadcaster’s management and editorial line. To do so, the government will have to look beyond short-term political opportunism towards more sustained democratic recovery.

 

The fate of Polska Press

Eyes are also on PKN Orlen, with speculation about what might happen to Polska Press amid the change in government and the expected changes in management at Poland’s state-owned companies — as well as media reports that Law and Justice plans to establish a new right-wing media company as the party moves into opposition. So far, Orlen has denied reports by news platform Onet that it plans to sell Polska Press rapidly before a new, opposition-led government is formed.

“Orlen has not and is not conducting any talks on the sale of Polska Press. The Orlen Group consistently implements its strategy, which is focused on the development of modern communication channels with customers, increasing digitization of sales formats and the construction of an e-commerce platform, among other things. The investment in Polska Press is part of this strategy, in particular in terms of building an integrated digital services platform,” wrote the company’s press office in its response to Onet.

Post-election changes at state-owned companies are also expected to have implications for spending on state advertising at private media outlets from across the political spectrum. Analysis of Kantar Media data by Tadeusz Kowalski, a media studies professor at the University of Warsaw, showed that state-owned companies have been spending higher amounts on advertising in media outlets that support the government. The abuse of state advertising funds to reward favourable coverage while draining critical media of revenue has long been criticized by international media freedom groups.

The matter of independent media regulation will also be on the agenda. Under PiS, the National Broadcasting Council, KRRiT, has been accused of abusing its licensing powers to create business uncertainty and applying arbitrary financial penalties to pressure independent newsrooms. Currently the influential regulator is dominated by PiS appointees. Creating the conditions for the body to be returned to democratic management by non-political figures will also face serious challenges.

With local and European Parliament elections scheduled for 2024, the stakes are high. While the post-election changes in Poland could usher in a new era of greater media freedom, undoing damage done by the outgoing Law and Justice government, there are several thorny issues to be dealt with — from the fate of TVP to that of Polska Press — and the new government will have to tread carefully.

The real challenge for the incoming coalition government will be to take a long-term view, ensuring that the reforms are not simply a purge, but democratic changes which fundamentally depoliticize the broadcasters and strengthen editorial independence from all governments, now and in the future.

This article was commissioned by IPI as part of 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. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Italy: MFRR partners condemn summons of RAI presenter Sigfrido…

Italy: MFRR partners condemn summons of RAI presenter Sigfrido Ranucci

In a collective statement released today, the partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) condemn the summoning of Sigfrido Ranucci, a prominent presenter at Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI), by the Parliamentary Committee responsible for the oversight of radio and TV broadcasting. This development is viewed as a clear act of intimidation, specifically aimed at an independent investigative TV programme that has consistently produced critical reports on various members of the current government.

The partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today condemn the summoning of Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI) presenter Sigfrido Ranucci by the Parliamentary Committee for the general direction and supervision of radio and TV broadcasting. We see this summons as another intimidation practice targeting an independent investigative TV programme, whose reporting has been critical of a number of members of the current government. 

Our organisations also urge the Italian Parliament to guarantee the independence of the Italian public service broadcaster (RAI) and halt unjustified political interference on its journalistic output.

On 25 October 2023, representatives of the hard-right government coalition voted to  summon Ranucci in his capacity as deputy director of RAI In-Depth Broadcast Directorate (Direzione Approfondimento). The Committee is chaired by the opposition party Five Star Movement and consists of a group of 40 senators and deputies, its composition reflecting the parliamentary configuration. 

Ranucci appeared before the committee on 7 November alongside Paolo Corsini, who chairs the Directorate. This was the first time that the Parliamentary Committee has singled out the authors of a particular TV show for summons and questioning. On paper, the hearing was called to discuss the general criteria regarding RAI’s investigative broadcasting.  However, the parliamentary questioning ended up focusing exclusively on Ranucci’s investigative show, Report and its finances. 

Throughout the past 27 years, Report has investigated numerous important public interest matters ranging from politics to corruption to the environment. The previous month, two investigative episodes broadcasted by Report sparked hostile reactions among members of the ruling coalition: one episode was about the president of the senate Ignazio La Russa and the other on the late president of coalition partner Forza Italia, Silvio Berlusconi. 

During the hearing, Ranucci defended the program’s independence and presented data on audience shares, providing evidence of Reports’ consistent viewers’ trends and budget allocation. He reminded the Committee how Report’s journalists have been brought to court 178 times and never found guilty. 

The tone of the parliamentary interaction and the circumstances in which the hearing was called signal an increasing risk of political interference to independent public service broadcasting and media freedom in Italy. 

The MFRR acknowledges that RAI’s independence is under renewed pressure, after the announcement of significant budget cuts, and the previous resignation of its CEO and other major politically-influenced internal management changes. 

We condemn this summons as an act of unjustified pressure and intimidation against Report’s independent investigative work, and we are alarmed by the threatening signal it sends to the Italian media community. We also express our deep concern for the mocking behaviour shown by some members of the governing coalition during the summons.

Along with Italian civil society and the Italian trade union of journalists Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (FNSI), we  stand strong in support of Ranucci and Report. We renew our call to the Italian Parliament to enact a legislation aimed at safeguarding public service media from unwarranted interference and ensuring its financial support, in line with the European Media Freedom Act’s proposal.

Signed by:

  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Free Press Unlimited
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
READ MORE

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.

Italia: i partner MFRR condannano la convocazione del conduttore RAI Sigfrido Ranucci

 

Le organizzazioni partner del consorzio Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) condannano oggi la convocazione del conduttore della Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI) Sigfrido Ranucci da parte della Commissione parlamentare per la direzione generale e la vigilanza sulle trasmissioni radiofoniche e televisive. Consideriamo questa convocazione come un altro atto intimidatorio nei confronti di un programma di giornalismo investigativo indipendente i cui servizi sono stati critici nei confronti di numerosi membri dell’attuale governo.

Le nostre organizzazioni sollecitano inoltre il Parlamento italiano a garantire l’indipendenza del servizio pubblico televisivo (RAI) e a porre fine alle ingiustificate ingerenze politiche sulla sua produzione giornalistica.

Il 25 ottobre 2023, i rappresentanti della coalizione di governo di estrema destra hanno votato per convocare Ranucci in qualità di vicedirettore della Direzione Approfondimento della RAI. La Commissione è presieduta dal partito di opposizione Movimento Cinque Stelle ed è composta da 40 senatori e deputati scelti in modo da riflettere la configurazione parlamentare.

Ranucci è comparso davanti alla Commissione il 7 novembre insieme a Paolo Corsini, che presiede il Direttivo. È la prima volta che la Commissione parlamentare convoca e interroga gli autori di un programma televisivo. Sulla carta l’udienza era convocata per discutere i criteri generali riguardanti l’attività investigativa della Rai, ma l’interrogazione parlamentare si è concentrata esclusivamente sul programma d’inchiesta di Ranucci, Report, e sulle sue finanze.

Nel corso degli ultimi 27 anni, Report ha indagato su numerose importanti questioni di interesse pubblico che vanno dalla politica alla corruzione all’ambiente. Il mese precedente, due inchieste avevano suscitato reazioni ostili tra i membri della coalizione di governo: una riguardava il presidente del Senato Ignazio La Russa e l’altra il defunto presidente del partito partner di coalizione Forza Italia, Silvio Berlusconi.

Durante l’udienza, Ranucci ha ribadito l’indipendenza del programma e ha presentato i dati sugli ascolti, fornendo prove dell’andamento stabile del programma e dell’allocazione del budget. Ha inoltre ricordato alla Commissione come i giornalisti di Report siano stati portati in tribunale 178 volte e mai trovati colpevoli.

Il tono dell’udienza parlamentare e le circostanze in cui è stata convocata l’udienza segnalano un crescente rischio di ingerenza politica nel servizio pubblico indipendente e nella libertà dei media in Italia.

MFRR nota che l’indipendenza della RAI è sotto rinnovata pressione dopo l’annuncio di significativi tagli al budget, le precedenti dimissioni del suo amministratore delegato e altri importanti cambiamenti al management interno dettati da influenze politiche.

Condanniamo questa convocazione come un atto ingiustificato di pressione e intimidazione contro il lavoro investigativo indipendente di Report e siamo allarmati dal segnale minaccioso che invia alla comunità dei media italiani. Esprimiamo inoltre la nostra profonda preoccupazione per l’atteggiamento beffardo mostrato da alcuni membri della coalizione di governo nel corso della convocazione.

Insieme alla società civile italiana e al sindacato italiano dei giornalisti Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (FNSI), ribadiamo il nostro sostegno a Ranucci ed a Report. Rinnoviamo il nostro appello al Parlamento italiano affinché promulghi una legislazione volta a salvaguardare i media di servizio pubblico da interferenze ingiustificate e ad assicurarne il sostegno economico in linea con la proposta dell’European Media Freedom Act.

Signed by:

  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Free Press Unlimited
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Slovakia: New PM rages against media while Culture Minister…

Slovakia: New PM rages against media while Culture Minister plans future of public service media

Robert Fico and his Smer party have returned to power in Slovakia. The politician who was forced to resign as prime minister after the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak in 2018 is back at the head of a new governing coalition creating deep unease among Slovakia’s journalists about the future for media freedoms and public service journalism.

 

By IPI contributor Peter Hanak

On Sunday November 12, Fico published a ten minute video tirade against independent news organisations where he singles out TV Markiza, the dailies SME and Dennik N, and website Aktuality as ‘enemy media’.

Promising that he is “not a dog that only barks”, Fico then warns that TV Markiza’s advertising revenue will be at risk when he instructs his people in government to both “deal with the TV financially” and to “look into Markiza’s ‘monopolist behaviour’”.

On Monday November 13, Fico then issued a press release announcing the four news organizations are not welcome at the premises of the Government Office of the Slovak Republic adding that “We will review their access and work. Until then, they are uninvited guests.”

The new government had already signalled its intent by handing the ministry of culture, together with its media portfolio, to the Slovak National Party (SNS), which calls for the dissolution of public service media while also boycotting most traditional media.

The new Slovakian government is formed by a coalition of Smer, Hlas and SNS. Hlas is a new party, led by Peter Pellegrini, a former leading Smer politician who replaced Fico as prime minister, after Fico‘s forced resignation in 2018, until Smer was defeated in the 2020 elections. SNS are seen as right wing radicals with many of their newly elected members of parliament and candidates for government posts having made their reputations as stars of the disinformation scene including pro-Russian influencers, famous for spreading hoaxes and misinformation.

The new minister of culture is Martina Šimkovičová, a former TV anchor who was fired from the mainstream TV Markíza for racist comments in 2015. The following year she was elected to parliament on an anti-migration ticket and subsequently became a superstar of the pro-Russian disinformation scene. She is one of the main figures behind the SNS call for a ‘boycott of traditional media“. SNS ignore most of the interview requests and refuse to answer questions from the independent and critical media operating outside oligarch ownership. SNS refused access to journalists from the daily Sme, Denník N and Aktuality to their post-election press conference.

SNS, with support from Smer, promises to favour the disinformation media. Several of their politicians have stated that they could give exclusive access to information for websites known for their pro-Russian propaganda, some of which were banned for a short period at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A Smer friendly website, Ereport, (owned by Mr. Flašík, a former Smer campaign strategist) is usually allowed to ask the first question at press conferences of the new coalition.

Even more worrying is what the government may be planning for the public service media, Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska (RTVS). In 2017, SNS leader Andrej Danko called for the replacement of public service media with ‘state media’ before his party helped orchestrate the political capture of RTVS. The new chairman of the parliamentary media and culture committee, SNS MP Roman Michelko, campaigned to dissolve RTVS altogether. He recently confirmed for Aktuality that the official programme of the new government will include the dissolution of RTVS into two separate entities, Slovak Television and Slovak Radio, as they existed before 2011. Prime Minister Fico also speculated about the future of RTVS while introducing the new minister of culture, saying, “It is hard to talk about the Slovak Television and Slovak Radio as public service, because this institution has rarely fulfilled this role.”

Journalists fear that the split of RTVS could make it easier for the political parties to establish and divide political control over public broadcasting by appointing their allies onto the board and into senior positions. MP Michelko has admitted that they might nominate members of the boards of the two new institutions that will be in line with the political values of the governing coalition.

Smer itself is a populist party with pro-Russian sympathies, feeding off anti-immigrant sentiment that campaigned to end the delivery of military help to Ukraine. Fico makes no secret of being inspired by Viktor Orbán mimicking his anti-journalist rhetoric and calls to label NGOs as ‘foreign agents’.

Fico’s attacks on journalists include calling them “idiots“, “hyenas“ and “dirty anti-Slovak prostitutes“. Fico also blamed the media for his 2018 resignation, claiming reporters had unfairly connected him and his party to the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancé, Martina Kusnirova. One theory at the time was that Italy’s Ndrangheta mafia may have sought to silence Kuciak because he had been working on a story exploring the connections between the mafia and Fico. The investigation subsequently prosecuted Marián Kočner (twice acquitted, but awaiting the results of an appeal) for the murders. Kočner was close to the oligarch Norbert Bodor and leaked communications between the two reveal them referring to Fico as ‘the boss’. At one point Fico and Bodor were charged with forming an organized criminal group, though the charges were later dropped by the Slovak general prosecution.

One more worrying development in the Slovak media market was announced just after the election. The oligarchic group Penta, has expanded its investments in the Slovak media to take over the largest daily tabloid newspaper, Nový Čas. The deal is still under review by the competition authority, but should it go through Penta will have a near monopoly on the Slovak tabloid newspaper market. Penta has been repeatedly accused of helping the Smer and Hlas parties by using their media to campaign against their political opponents. Over the last few years, Penta media published dozens of negative articles on the police and prosecutors to discredit investigations into Smer politicians and supporters for corruption or misuse of power.

In conclusion, it is clear that Slovak journalists can expect to face increased pressure and a government averse to accountable journalism. Under the previous Smer and SNS coalition government independent journalists were cast out of the public broadcaster, while dozens of investigative journalists were put under surveillance by corrupt police officials accused of being in the pay of Norbert Bodor. Leaked communications were used to discredit journalists and the persistent verbal attacks on critical journalists by Smer and SNS politicians created an atmosphere of threats and hostility in which the murder of Jan Kuciak and Martina Kusnirova became possible.

Nearly six years after their deaths Fico’s Sunday tirade against journalists will have shocked many but surprised few. Slovak journalists are once again bracing themselves for turbulent times.

This article was authored by Peter Hanak, journalist for the Slovak news site Aktuality.sk and author of IPI’s report ‘Media Capture in Slovakia: a story of fragile pluralism, media resilience and the struggle against corruption’. It was published by IPI as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response programme

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

The Netherlands: The MFRR and the CASE deplore abusive…

The MFRR and the CASE deplore the lawsuit against Het Financieele Dagblad

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) deplore the lawsuit against Dutch daily newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad (FD) and stand in solidarity with the FD and its journalists. The case, of which the hearing will take place on 13 November 2023, is a clear attempt to silence and discourage Het Financieele Dagblad and its journalists from further reporting.

On April 6, 2023, het Financieele Dagblad (FD), a Dutch daily newspaper specialising in business and finance, received a summons from Willem Blijdorp, founder and majority shareholder of the wholesale company B&S. Blijdorp is suing the newspaper and its editor-in-chief Perry Feenstra in a civil case before the Amsterdam District Court over two articles published in November 2022 about his investments in Iranian quarries. The legal basis of the claim is a wrongful act: Blijdorp’s lawyers argue that the article violates his honour and good name, and thereby violates Article 8 of the ECHR and article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

Published on November 2, 2022, the first article revealed that Blijdorp, who was vice-chairman of the B&S supervisory board, had hired nine B&S employees to advise and direct his private investment in Iranian marble. According to the newspaper, the involvement of B&S employees contradicts what the B&S executives had told other shareholders in April 2022, thereby omitting the risk that Blijdorp’s Iranian interests would violate sanctions.

A follow-up article was published on November 3, entitled “American watchdog: major shareholder B&S violates Iran sanctions”, which quotes the American non-profit organisation, United Against Nucluear Iran (UANI), describing Blijdorop’s simultaneous business relations with Iran and the United States as “a clear violation of Iran sanctions”.

The summons claim that the sole purpose of the reporting by the FD was to damage Blijdorp, and that the claims were “suggestive and partially incorrect”. Blijdorp asked for the two articles to be removed from the FD website, a correction in the print and online editions and for compensation of both material and immaterial damages to be paid.

 

Abusive tactics

Our organisations have closely assessed the legal claim and believe it qualifies as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPPs): abusive litigation filed by powerful individuals aimed at silencing and intimidating legitimate watchdog journalism.

Blijdorp did not opt for summary or preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding), the common route in the Netherlands for cases legitimately aimed at limiting reputational damage following a publication, but instead started main proceedings (bodemprocedure, i.e. proceedings on the merits). These proceedings are much longer than a kort geding and will unnecessarily drive up the legal costs for Het Financieele Dagblad. Blijdorp also asked the journalists to present all their sources to the court. In addition, he claims an excessive amount of €150.000 for non-material damages, while material damages will be calculated in separate proceedings.

In a concerning development on June 20, 2023, Blijdorp filed a petition to summon witnesses, including the journalist and possible sources. Furthermore, several sources received letters from Blijdorp’s lawyers – prior to the lawsuit – requesting them to urgently clarify which information the FD provided to them before giving their testimony. 

A hearing will be held at the Amsterdam Civil Court on November 13,  2023. The MFRR and CASE argue that this legal claim should be considered as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and needs to be dismissed at the earliest stage. We also reiterate our solidarity with the journalists of Het Financieele Dagblad who have already had to devote a great deal of time and resources to their defense, while trying to protect the confidentiality of their sources.

 

Threat to press freedom

The case against Het Financieele Dagblad highlights the threat posed to press freedom in Europe. While the European Union has traditionally been considered a beacon of press freedom, we see an alarming increase in legal intimidation through the use of SLAPPs that threatens the freedom and safety of journalists.  

A draft EU Directive to protect targets of SLAPPs held high promise, but ongoing negotiations between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union, may fail to translate European values into action. A watered-down version of the directive will provide no meaningful protection for journalists, media outlets, activists and civil society organisations in Europe. 

As we enter the final stages of the negotiations on the directive, this timely example again illustrates the crucial importance of a strong early dismissal mechanism, a wide definition of the notion of ‘cross-border’ and full compensation of damages. Otherwise similar cases will continue to mushroom throughout the EU, seriously weakening media freedom and the ability of journalists and media outlets to play their watchdog role, thereby undermining the public’s right to know.

Signed by:

  • Free Press Unlimited
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
READ MORE

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.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Turkey: Repeal the “disinformation offence” and overreaching legal amendments

Turkey: Repeal the “disinformation offence” and overreaching legal amendments

As the Turkish Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of the “disinformation offence”, today on 8 November, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partner organisations reiterate their call for the annulment of Article 217/A of the Turkish Penal Code and related legal amendments passed in October 2022 that undermine international standards on the right to freedom of expression and of the press.

 

Turkish translation available here. 

Since its introduction a year ago, the offence of “publicly disseminating misleading information” under Article 217/A, known as the “disinformation offence”, has been weaponized to silence dissent. The broad and vague language of Article 217/A has resulted in at least 33 journalists confronting legal consequences, indicating the article’s potential to stifle legitimate dialogue and critical thought under the guise of curbing “false information.”

Any restrictions to the right to freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution, must be prescribed by law, must pursue a legitimate aim, be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and necessary in a democratic society. The Venice Commission’s urgent opinion on the offence highlighted that the ambiguous manner with which Art. 217/A is worded jeopardises the legality criterion and that it is doubtful the offence is proportionate or necessary in a democratic society considering the chilling effect it would create; making the law incompatible with international standards on the freedom of expression.

The review by the Constitutional Court presents a critical opportunity for Turkey to reestablish adherence to the principles of international human rights law and democratic values. We call upon the Turkish Constitutional Court to acknowledge the incompatibility of Article 217/A with international human rights conventions and to annul this and other restrictive amendments from October 2022. 

In solidarity with those who champion free expression and media freedom in Turkey, we will be closely monitoring the Turkish Constitutional Court’s forthcoming hearing today, on 8 November, on the annulment of the “publicly disseminating misleading information” offence.

 

Background on the October 2022 amendments

In October 2022, the Turkish parliament passed a series of legislative amendments to several laws, including the Turkish Penal Code, the Internet Law and the Press Law. This new “censorship” or “disinformation law” criminalised “spreading false information” while additional provisions have imposed heavy obligations on social media platforms and over-the-top service providers.

 

Before the October 2022 amendments, Turkish legislation was already placing tight constraints on online platforms, mandating swift compliance with content takedown requests under the threat of substantial penalties. Since the October 2022 changes, social media platforms (SMPs) risk advertising bans, hefty fines that could be as high as 3 percent of their global income, and significant reductions in their bandwidth, or ‘throttling’, if they do not follow government orders. Not adhering to even a single demand for content removal or user information can lead to up to 90 percent throttling of their services and a six-month ban on advertisements.

Signed by:

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

Türkiye: “Dezenformasyon suçu” ve diğer kısıtlayıcı yasal değişiklikler yürürlükten kaldırılsın

 

ARTICLE 19 Europe ve Medya Özgürlüğü Acil Müdahale (MFRR) paydaşları; Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin “dezenformasyon suçunun” anayasaya uygunluğunu incelediği bugün (8 Kasım), Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun 217/A maddesinin ve Ekim 2022’de kabul edilen ve ifade hürriyeti hakkına ilişkin uluslararası standartları hiçe sayan yasal değişikliklerin iptali çağrısını yinelemektedir.

Bir yıl önce yürürlüğe girmesinden bu yana, “dezenformasyon suçu” olarak bilinen 217/A maddesi kapsamındaki “halkı yanıltıcı bilgiyi alenen yayma” suçu, muhalefeti susturmak için silah olarak kullanılıyor. Madde 217/A’nın geniş ve muğlak dili, en az 33 gazeteciye soruşturma açılmasına neden oldu. Bu durum, maddenin “gerçeğe aykırı bilginin yayılmasını” engelleme kisvesi altında meşru diyaloğu ve eleştirel düşünceyi boğma potansiyeline işaret ediyor.

Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası’nın 26. maddesi ile düzenlenen ifade hürriyeti hakkına getirilecek her türlü kısıtlama kanunla öngörülmeli, meşru bir amaç gütmeli, güdülen meşru amaçla orantılı olmalı ve demokratik bir toplumda gerekli olmalıdır. Venedik Komisyonu’nun suçla ilgili acil görüşünde, 217/A maddesinin muğlak ifadesinin yasallık kriterini tehlikeye attığı belirtilmiş, fiilin suç olarak düzenlenmesinin yaratacağı caydırıcı etkinin bu düzenlemenin demokratik bir toplumun gereklerine uygun veya güdülen amaçla orantılı olduğunu şüpheye düşürdüğü vurgulanmıştır. Komisyon, bu durumun yasayı ifade hürriyetine ilişkin uluslararası standartlarla bağdaşmaz hale getirdiği kanaatine varmıştır. 

Anayasa Mahkemesi tarafından yapılacak inceleme, Türkiye’nin uluslararası insan hakları hukuku ilkelerine ve demokratik değerlere bağlılığını yeniden tesis etmesi için kritik bir fırsat sunmaktadır. Anayasa Mahkemesi’ni 217/A maddesinin uluslararası insan hakları sözleşmeleriyle uyumsuzluğunu kabul etmeye, Ekim 2022’de mevzuata eklenen bu ve diğer kısıtlayıcı değişiklikleri iptal etmeye çağırıyoruz. 

Türkiye’de ifade hürriyetini ve medya özgürlüğünü savunanlarla dayanışma içinde, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nde “halkı yanıltıcı bilgiyi alenen yayma” suçunu düzenleyen hükmün iptaline ilişkin bugün (8 Kasım) yapılacak incelemeyi yakından takip edeceğiz.

 

Ekim 2022’de yapılan yasa değişikliklerinin arka planı

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi; Ekim 2022’de Türk Ceza Kanunu, İnternet Kanunu ve Basın Kanunu da dâhil olmak üzere çeşitli kanunlarda bir dizi değişiklik yaptı. Bu yeni “sansür” veya “dezenformasyon yasası”, “gerçeğe aykırı bilgi yaymayı” suç olarak düzenlerken, sosyal medya mecralarına ve internet servis sağlayıcılarına da ağır yükümlülükler getirdi.

 

Ekim 2022 değişikliklerinden önce Türkiye’deki mevzuat halihazırda dijital mecralar için ağır kısıtlamalar öngörüyor ve önemli ceza tehditleri altında içerik kaldırma emirlerine hızlı bir şekilde uyulmasını zorunlu kılıyordu. Bu değişikliklerin yürürlüğe girmesinden bu yana, sosyal medya mecraları (SMM’ler), iktidarın emirlerine uymadıkları takdirde reklam yasakları, küresel gelirlerinin yüzde 3’üne kadar çıkabilecek ağır para cezaları ve bant genişliklerinde önemli düşüşler veya “daraltma” riskiyle karşı karşıya bulunmaktadır. Mevcut düzenlemeye göre içerik kaldırılması ya da kullanıcı bilgilerine ilişkin tek bir talebe dahi uyulmaması, bant genişliklerinin yüzde 90’a varan oranda daraltılmasına ve altı aya kadar reklam yasağı almalarına neden olabilmektedir.

 

Ekim 2022 değişiklikleri hakkında daha fazla bilgi için aşağıdaki kaynakları ziyaret edebilirsiniz:

https://www.article19.org/resources/turkey-dangerous-dystopian-new-legal-amendments
https://freeturkeyjournalists.ipi.media/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/turkey-throttling-the-media-in-crucial-election-year-turkish.pdf

İMZALAYANLAR

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • Avrupa Basın ve Medya Özgürlüğü Merkezi (ECPMF)
  • Avrupa Gazeteciler Federasyonu (EFJ)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI)

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 and candidate countries. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos