is a stale debate. Should be, and I wanted to avoid talking about this, because I feel unworthy of Europe. Area: European Union. And totally out of time in our over-age. Time: the Internet and information galore. From January 1, Hungary, is in effect a law that threatens media against freedom of expression. I suppose you heard of this because we fought more than a month. As I hear. Hungary is not only Member State of the Union, but also holds the rotating EU presidency. The news was discussed here and on twitter before Christmas and there were many demonstrations and protests, to the point that came to be questioned 's own presidency. For now, the Orban government has ignored warnings from Brussels, saying that technical issues affecting law or infringe the freedom to express opinions. However, Commissioner Kroes has decided to take decisive action. Last Friday sent a personal letter to the Hungarian government which requires an amendment to the law within fifteen days, with confirmation that the law is contrary to basic EU law. Kroes, finally, has threatened to punish Hungary formally if not removed, or modified, the law.
Orban was elected last April 25, 2010 to reorganize the Central State in the financial and economic situation of concern and has been quick to promote this legislation, and fines up to 730,000 euros for press , digital media, radio and television in the event that any of their news "affecting the public interest, public order and morality." Expand on details, but the three aspects of media law Orban concern to the European Commission are:
1. The requirement that "all" the media provide coverage "balanced" information.
2. The imposition of fines and restrictions on news content from other Member States.
3. The obligation on all media and reporters independienetes, including bloggers, to register officially.
Obviously, this third direct assault on freedom of establishment, and is a barrier to the free provision of services. For the Commission, the Charter of Fundamental Rights takes precedence over national laws guaranteeing freedom of expression, so that means that the concept of balanced information (which includes the Hungarian law) is an excuse to condition the informant. As for the restriction of content from other countries only could be done to safeguard the protection of minors or in cases of incitement to hatred or violence, and not so broadly as claimed Orban. It is also a law that invites in the jargon is called "shooting the messenger" because it forces journalists to reveal their sources to the Authority, created for this purpose, on matters of "national security" (another very subjective term), the law does not lose detail and follows, for example specifying that it will fine the media who engage in insults that target majorities, minorities, nations and the Church.
should be stressed that this law implies sanctions, which provides an important capability and excessive discretion to shift political power over the media. Does anyone is able to determine when information is balanced? So much they fear that any citizen can express their views freely on the Web without having to submit to an official record? As one would expect, this law involves the creation of a government agency, the National Media (nine-year term), which will ensure that control information.
Brussels can not tolerate this attack on freedom. MEPs we see in the image speak for themselves. For then the Eurosceptic sympathetic to Bruno Waterfield go comparing to the European institutions with monarchs ... and make little jokes with gilded carriages Strasbourg (stating that I have laughed with his chronicle, and stating that I am in favor of eliminating the absurd double parliamentary seat). But the European Parliament does not need glitz to justify their existence. There are many struggles, and today we focus on the Hungarian media law, full of inaccuracies and insults to the intelligence, law old-fashioned muzzle imposed by Orban, who comes to power with an authoritarian style.
Not surprisingly, organizations like the International Press Institute (IPI), with its subsidiary, South Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO), Freedom House, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have also criticized the media law. Hungary is a member state since 2004. It seems that these six years of membership in the European Union are not having a translation into practice government policy. It's a stain too striking to pass up. I hope that Kroes will get away with it and during the month of February can testify here is good news for freedom of the Hungarians.
0 comments:
Post a Comment