France, Italy and Greece are among seven countries pushing to allow authorities to spy on journalists for national security purposes, a new study has found.
The EU Media Freedom Act, first published in September last year, aims to strengthen the independence and pluralism of the media sector in Europe. Yet some commentators fear that without the right wording and provisions, the new law will de facto achieve the opposite result.
Today, December 15, the European Commission will hold what is expected to be the final round of talks (trilogue), during which the hardliner governments may find a compromise with other members.
As mentioned, the EU media freedom law It is an attempt to establish some rules to ensure and protect media freedom and pluralism throughout the Union. It comes in response to concerns about a highly politicized media landscape. This includes safeguards against political interference in editorial decisions and the use of spyware against journalists, a framework for transparency, increased protection of journalistic sources, and more.
Although the intentions were good and necessary, the ongoing negotiations appear to have shaped the law with some controversial clauses that have concerned commentators.
“The EU Media Freedom Act (EMFA), while well-intentioned, has significant shortcomings,” wrote digital rights advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation on December 6, commenting on a proposed special status for major media outlets whose content cannot be removed from major technology platforms.
Another, even more controversial point concerns the use of surveillance tools against journalists. Born as a way to make this practice illegal after high-profile cases across Europe, some countries continue to push for a “national security clause” (Article 4). Reporters without Borders report this“This is a “dangerous provision that would poison the law from within.”
More freedom or supervision?
While the infamous Article 4 and the “national security” exemption are nothing new (it was added to the text in June), new revelations shed some light on the countries lobbying together to legitimize this kind of state surveillance.
a joint research three EU media outlets (Investigate Europe, the French non-profit organization Disclose and the Netherlands-based Follow the Money) showed that France, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Finland, Sweden And Malta are the seven governments still pushing to allow the use of spyware against journalists despite the wave of criticism in the sector?
According to a document obtained by the media consortium and written by a senior German official present at the last trialogue on November 22, Italy has taken the strongest positions by considering the additional paragraph a “must and red line”. France, Finland and Cyprus said they were “not very flexible” on the issue. While Sweden, Malta and Greece agreed 'with some nuances'.
“Governments have nothing to do with journalists' phones. We in the European Parliament have made provision for this. It is unacceptable that member states are now trying to reintroduce this snooping paragraph through the back door,” said one of the negotiators, the German Greens. MEP Daniel Freund, to investigate Europe.
🇪🇺#EU: IPI is concerned by revelations that #France, #Italy, #Greece and other governments are pushing for 'national security' loopholes over the surveillance of journalists amid the final stages of EU negotiations on the #EuropeanMediaFreedomAct.https:/ /t.co/55LpBzPJBRDecember 12, 2023
The biggest fear here is that such a provision will de facto legitimize the unlawful use of Pegasus and Predator spyware against journalists, which has already occurred in Greece, Spain, Bulgaria and Hungary. These governments have all previously played the national security card to justify their actions.
Before the latest revelations, 17 European media organizations signed an agreement open letter calling for “the adoption of robust wording in the final version.”
They wrote: “We are deeply concerned about the chilling effect that could arise if the final text imposes conditions on the disclosure of sources that do not comply with international human rights standards and maintains the paragraph: 'This article does not diminish responsibility of the Member States to safeguard national security'.
“The EU has always been a stronghold of media freedom and pluralism, but today these central values are in decline. Where the rule of law is undermined, media freedom is often the first victim.”
At the time of writing this article, representatives of the EU Member States are discussing these two very different lines on this thorny issue. We don't know which of the two will ultimately prevail, but most likely the hardliners will have to find a compromise with the other states. Whether that will be enough to actually protect media freedom and the privacy of journalists in Europe remains to be seen.