As the Media Freedom Act moves on in the European Parliament, the real elephant in the room has become a provision introduced in the EU Council’s version that would allow authorities to spy on journalists for national security reasons.

The Parliament’s Internal Market Committee (IMCO) adopted its draft opinion on the proposed Media Freedom Act with significant support on Thursday (29 June), contributing to what has become a contentious political discussion.

The act is a legislative proposal to boost transparency in media ownership and pluralism in the EU’s media market. Several aspects of the file, including its very necessity and legal basis, have proven contentious.

But the real bone of contention is set to become a carveout wanted by France that would allow intelligence services and law enforcement agencies to spy on journalists if national security is at stake, a provision even French lawmakers are opposing.

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Geoffroy Didier, MEP of the centre-right European People’s Party, posted a tweet calling on French President Emmanuel Macron and the French government to “abandon their plan to be able to spy on journalists legally”.

Didier led the opinion for the Internal Market committee, which, however, only has shared competencies on the file that is led by the Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). All of his compromise amendments were adopted.

Didier’s opinion report includes several changes, but on certain controversial aspects of the file, it is more temperate than the draft report prepared by CULT rapporteur Sabine Verheyen (centre-right EPP) earlier this year. IMCO members adopted the opinion with 34 votes in favour, four against and three abstentions.

The text makes no change to the specifics of the provisions covering the use of spyware and the protection of journalistic sources. Still, it clarifies that the regulation shall not be taken to prohibit, restrict, or undermine encrypted services.

The measures on spyware have been amongst the most controversial. Verheyen’s draft report also declined to propose significant edits to this regulation section, but the EU Council of Ministers, upon pressure from France, included a carveout for national security.

This move triggered extensive pushback from civil society groups and other lawmakers, including MEP Sophie in ‘t Veld, leader of the Parliament’s ongoing investigation into the use of Pegasus spyware in Europe, who described it as “unacceptable” and “incomprehensible”.

In provisions outlining the information media service providers are required to make accessible to recipients of their services, the opinion suggests adding details such as whether they are owned by the government, a state institution, a state-owned enterprise, or another public body, as well as any business interests or corporate links, and any of their owners’ professional activities in other media service providers.

It is also suggested, as part of obligations to protect the independence of editorial decision-making, that codes of conduct, along the lines of broader professional standards, are developed in cooperation with organisations or associations of journalists and other actors in the media industry.

The text also deletes a previous exemption from such obligations for micro-enterprises.

Another key file aspect that has caused division is the provision covering online platforms. The Commission’s proposal allows declared media service providers to be notified before restrictions or suspensions of their content take effect.

The IMCO opinion moderates this to say that notification should come before suspensions or restrictions, “if possible” and “without undue delay”, a divergence from CULT’s approach, which states that service providers should be given a 48-hour window in which to respond to the decision before it enters into force.

Those working in anti-disinformation fields have argued that this is a return of the “media exemption” debate that arose during negotiations on the Digital Services Act (DSA) and that such a measure would facilitate the spread of disinformation online.

IMCO and CULT align, however, on proposing that complaints from service providers about such decisions should be dealt with within 24 hours of their submission.

Also proposed in Didier’s report is the requirement that the new European Board for Media Services, which will replace the existing European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services as the media sector regulator, should produce an annual report on the state of media freedom, to which EU countries should be required to submit relevant data and information.

The report should also include media ownership transparency.

The deadline for amendments to CULT’s draft report was in May, and it is set for a committee vote in September, followed by a plenary vote in October, after which inter-institutional trilogue negotiations may begin between the Council, Parliament, and the Commission.

Source: Euractiv.com