Will the European Parliament walk the talk and protect journalists?

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

In a democratic society, where we rely on journalists to act as public watchdogs, we cannot have them worried about becoming a target of government-sanctioned spying, Sebastian Becker, Chloé Berthélémy and Shubham Kaushik write.

ADVERTISEMENT

The European Union considers itself a bastion of democracy and fundamental rights. Journalists and media freedom are the bedrock of these principles. 

But a new regulation — that seeks to protect these very values — might fall short of its goal if the European Parliament refuses to walk the talk.

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) was proposed in 2022 to protect journalists and media providers and serve as a push for strengthening EU democracy. 

It will become the first-ever law with binding rules on the use of surveillance technologies by European governments against journalists.

This week, the European Parliament will take a decisive vote on this regulation.

Spyware harms journalists and our democracy

The harms of spyware are well-known and documented. In 2021, we found out about the over 180 journalists in 20 countries, including Hungary, Spain and France, whose phones were infected by the Pegasus spyware, often by their own countries’ governments.

It became immensely clear that spyware lets governments get unchecked and unlimited access to a person’s communications, intimate photos, personal contacts and online behaviour data — everything without the knowledge of the victim. 

What’s worse, spyware can bypass all digital security features that journalists rely on — including encryption — and turn a phone into a real-time spying device.

In a world where such dangerous hacking tools can be so easily acquired on the market and deployed by governments with little to no scrutiny, there are almost no online spaces left where journalists can feel safe and ensure source confidentiality. 

The need for a full ban on spyware in any law that seeks to protect journalists is inarguable.

EU governments use ‘national security’ as a carte blanche

But this isn’t sitting right with some EU member states who want to continue to be able to abuse spyware. 

During the legislative debates, France demanded that EU countries should be allowed to force the disclosure of sources, arrest, detain, put under surveillance and even deploy spyware against journalists for reasons of “national security”.

It has been shown time and again how EU countries abuse this notion of national security to impose mass surveillance or other exceptional repressive measures on their citizens. 

Just ask Ariane Lavrilleux, a French journalist who was arrested in France in September 2023. 

She revealed the responsibility of France for crimes committed by the dictatorship of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt through her investigation in 2021. 

In the name of “national security”, Ariane was detained while her apartment was searched and all her electronic devices seized.

Her experience will have a severe chilling effect on investigative journalism.

We need the EU to guarantee a surveillance-free media environment

In a democratic society, where we rely on journalists to act as public watchdogs, we cannot have them worried about becoming a target of government-sanctioned spying. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Journalists also need to be able to guarantee their sources’ full confidentiality to secure the reporting of trustworthy and public interest information.

They rely on tools like encryption to ensure safe and private communications. Beatriz Ramalho Da Silva, an investigative journalist at Lighthouse Reports, told European Digital Rights that end-to-end encryption guarantees the safety of journalists’ sources, contributors and partners whose work places them under threat by their governments. If their communications were intercepted people’s lives would be at risk.

All of this is hampered when governments or other malicious actors invade journalists’ phones and devices to get access to their sources and editorial strategy. 

Responsible, public-interest journalism cannot exist in an environment where the threat of the government spying on you through your phone looms large.

The European Parliament has an opportunity next week to ensure that journalists don’t have to go through this any more. But will the MEPs seize this opportunity?

ADVERTISEMENT

Will the EU’s ‘pragmatism’ stand in the way of protecting our journalists?

With such clarity on the grave consequences that can ensue when spyware is weaponised against journalists, one has to wonder why the European Parliament is shying away from taking a strong stance.

There’s a possibility that the MEPs are pre-emptively softening their stance because they’re concerned about the tough battle ahead for EMFA in the inter-institutional negotiations. 

The Council of the European Union, comprising all EU member states, will fight tooth and nail against any limitation — no matter how reasonable — on their “national security” competence. 

The Council of the EU have already agreed to give a “free pass” to national police and law enforcement agencies for spyware use when it comes to this issue.

The European Parliament is the only EU institution that is directly elected by citizens. Instead of worrying about how their position will be perceived by the member states, they should reflect on their responsibility to us. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Pragmatism as an excuse?

We, the people, deserve trustworthy journalism, and journalists — who will be adversely affected when spyware invades their phones and puts their lives and livelihoods at risk — deserve to be able to do their jobs.

Journalists, civil society and media associations have united several times to raise alarm about this issue. But we’ve been told that a total ban on this nefarious technology is not pragmatic.

We hope that being “pragmatic” does not become an excuse for the European Parliament for not doing everything possible to prevent real, grievous harm to journalists. 

They have the opportunity next week to stick up for their own beliefs, for journalists, and for the health of the EU’s democracy. 

Their failure to do so will be a death knell for the rights of journalists risking their lives to speak truth to power.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sebastian Becker serves as Policy Advisor, Chloé Berthélémy is a Senior Policy Advisor, and Shubham Kaushik is a Communications and Media Officer at European Digital Rights (EDRi).

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#European #Parliament #walk #talk #protect #journalists

Is Europe’s commitment to uphold media freedom a false promise?

By Emma Bergmans, Policy Advisor, Free Press Unlimited, and Corinne Vella, Head of Communications, Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

EU member states claim a balance must be struck between the need to protect SLAPP targets and the need to ensure access to justice. We agree. SLAPP targets are no less deserving of access to justice than those who persecute them, Emma Bergmans and Corinne Vella write.

Traditionally, the European Union has been considered a beacon of press freedom. Yet an alarming increase in legal intimidation is threatening the safety of journalists. 

An EU directive to protect targets of judicial harassment holds high promise, but after negotiations between member states, it fails to translate European values into action.

Negotiations to determine the final text are currently taking place — it’s time that member states honour their commitment to press freedom.

SLAPPs are a form of abuse and intimidation

Independent journalism is under great pressure in the EU. An alarming trend in the past few years has been the sharp increase in legal intimidation as a tool to silence critical voices who report on matters of public interest. 

This undermines the work of journalists and directly affects the public’s access to information. 

So-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs, are on the rise against independent journalists and their media houses who report on facts that are inconvenient for those in power. 

The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe documented 570 SLAPP cases between 2010 and 2021; their research showing an exponential increase in the use of SLAPPs since 2017. 

Through the use of SLAPPs, wealthy and powerful individuals abuse the legal system to intimidate and coerce journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society organisations into silence. 

Not only do SLAPPs seriously harm their targets both financially and psychologically —  the damage also extends to the general public who are denied their right to information.

In the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Union commits to respect media freedom and pluralism, and to uphold freedom of expression — a priority, as this is one of the four pillars of modern democratic society. 

Yet, member states have failed to translate their shared European values into concrete action. Instead, protecting individual national interests and the interests of powerful businesses seem to be getting the upper hand.

‘Daphne’s Law’ would not have protected Daphne Caruana Galizia herself

In April 2022, the European Commission took concrete action and published a proposal for an anti-SLAPP directive, which is symbolically nicknamed “Daphne’s Law” after the most famous target of SLAPPs: the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was murdered in 2017 and against whom 48 libel and defamation cases had been brought. 

To this day, her immediate family is still entangled in a number of these lawsuits.

The proposal, as presented by the European Commission, shows great ambition and contains strong minimum standards for anti-SLAPP legislation in all EU member states. 

Yet, the negotiations on the directive between European member states have resulted in a compromised position that lacks any ambition. 

The Council of the European Union is proposing to water down or remove important safeguards, resulting in a proposed directive that would fail to offer any meaningful protection to journalists and activists who hold power to account. 

Ironically, the Council’s version of Daphne’s Law would not have protected Daphne herself from the SLAPPs she was facing. The Council’s members should therefore adopt, at a minimum, the protections of the original anti-SLAPP proposal.

Is the bar for dismissal set too high?

In the Council of the European Union’s revised proposal, abusive court proceedings can only be dismissed early when “a claim is so obviously unfounded that there is no scope for any reasonable doubt”. 

This is an extremely high threshold that is almost impossible to meet. It begs the question as to which cases would even be covered — a question which member states seem unable to answer.

Furthermore, in their negotiations, member states have removed the wide definition of “cross-border” cases, meaning the directive will not be applicable to the vast majority of SLAPPs which have cross-border relevance. 

According to recent research published by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe, roughly 90% of SLAPP cases in Europe are brought in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff and SLAPP target are both domiciled and would thus fall outside of the proposed directive, even if the case has cross-border relevance.

A slap on the wrist for repeat SLAPPers?

Finally, the Council has removed the provision for compensating SLAPP targets for the harm they suffer, thereby failing to facilitate their right to full compensation for related damages, both material and non-material, and failing to act as a deterrent for so-called repeat “SLAPPers” — people who routinely abuse the law to silence their critics. 

To offer any meaningful protection, the directive needs to ensure victims of SLAPPs can easily claim and obtain full compensation for damages — including psychological harm — without having to file a separate claim.

Member states claim a balance must be struck between the need to protect SLAPP targets and the need to ensure access to justice. 

We agree. SLAPP targets are no less deserving of access to justice than those who persecute them. 

The anti-SLAPP directive must protect them effectively, and it is within member states’ gift to ensure that happens.

Emma Bergmans is the Policy Advisor on the Safety for Journalists at Free Press Unlimited, and Corinne Vella is the Head of Communications at the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Europes #commitment #uphold #media #freedom #false #promise