Europe Fails to Live Up as ‘Global Authority’ on Press Freedom
While the European Union is declared to be one of the world’s strongholds of democracy, it appears that the freedom of press – an indefeasible principle of democratic practice – is being widely violated across the EU, with 20 of the bloc’s 28 countries imposing strict criminal defamation laws and several states practicing mass surveillance.
Despite the fact that Brussels has made press freedom an essential qualification for EU membership, criminal defamation and blasphemy laws that threaten free speech rights remain in effect in many eurozone countries, a new report by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) revealed.Defamation is still treated as a crime demanding strict punishment in most EU states. For instance, in countries like Slovakia, Italy, Austria and Germany you can be imprisoned for distribution of information that can be qualified as slander.
“Insults against the state, state symbols, or institutions, foreign heads of state, and even intergovernmental organizations are present in many EU members’ criminal laws,” the NGO reported.
Researchers pointed out that covering the work of public officials in such states as Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and the Netherlands may be unsafe for reporters, as freedom there is restrained by strict media laws.
Repressive measures toward journalists in many European states are justified by counterterrorism measures, leading to ubiquitous Internet surveillance and censorship, according to the report.
“CPJ is concerned at the increasing number of press freedom violations by European countries traditionally viewed as examples of good democratic practice, and by the failure of the European Union to take resolute action to protect the rights of journalists,” said Jean-Paul Marthoz, the author of report.
Brussels officials don’t have effective instruments to force eurozone states to uphold the principles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that, in theory, provides a wide range of freedoms to all citizens within the EU. In practice, some states violate that law.A recent instance of abuse of journalistic rights was cited in Hungary, where many reporters were obstructed for covering the refugee crisis, the report reads, noting infringement of basic freedom of press laws was common in Europe.
“No member state should be permitted to behave with such impunity. If those values still matter to the EU, Brussels must demonstrate that such actions have consequences.”
If the EU doesn’t find the tools to prevent attacks against journalists within the bloc, Europe will lose a ground as a “global authority on press freedom,” the researchers concluded.
Excerpt from :
The press is one means Public can be believed by the public and can in Hate by the Society. The problem is whether the news is true (truth) or justification (Lies).
Justification is certain to be in hate and on the left by the Community, before left behind will be in process by applicable law has issued libel because it can not account for the news. (fines and closure / takeover of companies)
As Apparatus (whatever his rank, President, King, Lords and member of the board) if it gets the question, why should escape from the question. It is appropriate to provide clarification on the question. (naturally if there are questions and give answers, both negative and positive question).
As the questioner would have had to ask semisalnya criteria:
– The problem of sex with his wife if appropriate in question? (inappropriate)
– In the case of corruption or crime, after there is evidence that led to the case, it is natural to ask. Eg work and personal bank accounts. (Apparatus reasonable to give instructions if innocent, should not be so negative), the bank officials who lodged the case if the sanctions that destroy the evidence given very large in fines can be prosecuted even cooperate with the suspect apparatus).
Expectations can be received for the openness of the press to the public as a Government watchdog neutrality.
Mark Mamangkey Tjost
Pers merupakan salah satu sarana Publik yang dapat di percaya oleh Masyarakat dan dapat di Benci oleh Masyarakat. Yang menjadi permasalahan adalah apakah berita tersebut benar (Kebenaran) atau Pembenaran (Kebohongan).
Pembenaran sudah pasti akan di benci dan di tinggalkan oleh Masyarakat, sebelum di tinggalkan akan di Proses melalui hukum yang berlaku dengan telah mengeluarkan fitnah karena tidak dapat mempertanggung-jawabkan beritanya. (denda dan penutupan / pengambil alihan perusahaan)
Sebagai Aparatur (apapun jabatannya, Presiden, Raja, Bangsawan maupun anggota dewan) jika mendapat pertanyaan, mengapa harus melarikan diri dari pertanyaan tersebut. Sudah sepantasnya memberikan klarifikasi atas pertanyaan tersebut. (sudah sewajarnya jika ada pertanyaan dan memberikan jawaban, baik pertanyaan negatif maupun positif).
Sebagai penanya tentu harus mempunyai kriteria untuk bertanya semisalnya :
– masalah seks dengan istri apakah pantas di tanyakan ? (tidak pantas)
– dalam hal korupsi atau kejahatan, setelah ada bukti yang menuju ke kasus, wajar untuk bertanya. Misalnya rekening bank pribadi maupun dinas. (Aparatur wajar memberi petunjuk jika tidak bersalah, tidak boleh berpikiran negatif), bagi bank aparatur yang tersangkut kasus jika menghilangkan bukti maka sanksi yang di berikan sangat besar dalam denda bahkan dapat di tuntut bekerja sama dengan tersangka aparatur.
Harapan dapat di terima untuk keterbukaan pers ke masyarakat umum sebagai Netralitas pengawas Pemerintahan.
Mark Mamangkey Tjost