{"id":11736,"date":"2025-08-19T10:24:19","date_gmt":"2025-08-19T09:24:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/?p=11736"},"modified":"2025-10-02T10:42:50","modified_gmt":"2025-10-02T09:42:50","slug":"the-european-media-freedom-act-is-not-a-tool-against-the-freedom-to-spread-disinformation-and-deny-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/2025\/08\/19\/the-european-media-freedom-act-is-not-a-tool-against-the-freedom-to-spread-disinformation-and-deny-climate-change\/","title":{"rendered":"The European Media Freedom Act Is Not a Tool Against the \u201cFreedom\u201d to Spread Disinformation and Deny Climate Change"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Original article<\/a>\u00a0(in Bosnian) was published on 15\/8\/2025; Author:\u00a0Nerma \u0160ehovi\u0107<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The portal Epoha published a manipulative article about the European Media Freedom Act, falsely claiming that it was adopted to close down and spy on journalists who \u201cdisagree with Brussels\u2019 policies\u201d, that is, who spread disinformation on public health or deny climate change.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On August 11, 2025, the portal Epoha published an article<\/a> about the new EU law, with the following headline:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The New Orwellian Media Law of the European Union Allows the Arrest of Journalists Who Disagree with Brussels\u2019 Policies<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The article states that the new European Media Freedom Act provides for the possibility of arresting journalists if they \u201cdisagree with the policies\u201d of the EU, that is, if they report contrary to alleged \u201cnarratives\u201d on public health or climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

EMFA now legalises the violation of journalists\u2019 privacy by hacking their phones and other devices, which is in complete contradiction with the rights established by the European Charter, which of course does not matter to the Brussels dictators.<\/em>
And worst of all: the new law allows the arrest of journalists if it is in the \u201cpublic interest,\u201d which would mean that, for example, in the next \u201cplandemic\u201d those who report against the narrative could be arrested.<\/em>
Likewise, someone who points out climate frauds could also be arrested, with the implication that such a journalist is opposing an agenda aimed at \u201cprotecting\u201d Europe from climate catastrophe.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Claims from this article were also shared on social media (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are the Facts?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) entered into force on August 8, 2025<\/a>. It is a law adopted in 2024 that regulates the work of the media in areas such as transparency of ownership and state advertising [promotion of messages or information campaigns for, on behalf of, or by public authorities], while also protecting media and journalists. Oversight of the application of this law will be entrusted to the newly established European Board for Media Services. EMFA is the first law of the European Union that directly concerns media regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The full text of the law<\/a> is available on the website of the Official Journal of the EU in Croatian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 4 of the European Media Freedom Act states that \u201cMember States shall ensure effective protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications\u201d. It provides that Member States may not interfere in editorial policies and decisions, may not oblige media service providers, editors or journalists to disclose the confidential sources of their information, nor detain, search or conduct surveillance on media service providers who may have information about sources or confidential communications. They may also not install any intrusive surveillance software through which sources can be identified or gain access to confidential communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the law sets out the following exceptions to these rules:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

(…) Member States may adopt one of the measures listed in it [paragraph 3 of Article 4] provided that it is:
a) provided for by Union law or national law;
b) in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and other Union law;
c) proportionate and justified on a case-by-case basis by an overriding reason of public interest; and
d) subject to prior authorisation by a judicial authority or an independent and impartial authority competent to take decisions, or, in duly justified exceptional and urgent cases, to subsequent approval by that authority without undue delay.
5. By way of derogation from paragraph 3(c), Member States may install intrusive surveillance software provided that its use is:
a) in accordance with the conditions of paragraph 4; and
b) carried out for the purpose of investigating one of the persons referred to in paragraph 3(c) for:
i. criminal offences referred to in Article 2(2) of Framework Decision 2002\/584\/JHA which in the relevant Member State are punishable by a maximum penalty of at least three years\u2019 imprisonment; or
ii. other serious criminal offences punishable in the relevant Member State by a maximum penalty of at least five years\u2019 imprisonment, as defined under the law of that Member State.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union<\/a> states that \u201cany limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and must respect the essence of those rights and freedoms\u201d and that \u201csubject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the criminal offences referred to in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision 2002\/584\/JHA<\/a> (the decision on the European arrest warrant), for the purpose of investigating which the installation of intrusive surveillance software would be permitted, they include terrorism, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, money laundering or counterfeiting, extortion, murder, financial fraud, kidnapping and the like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The European Media Freedom Act<\/a> also provides that intrusive surveillance software may not be installed if another measure can be applied to obtain the necessary information, and that the Member State must ensure that judicial or another independent body regularly monitors surveillance activities and determines whether they are justified in the context of the conditions set out in the law. In addition, Member States undertake to apply data protection safeguards in the event of surveillance and to ensure that media service providers are informed about the right to judicial protection in this context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the draft of this law<\/a>, which the European Commission proposed in 2022, the installation of spyware was also permitted in cases where national security was deemed to be at risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Criticism of the Law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The provisions that allow surveillance of journalists and their confidential communications were met with strong criticism from numerous journalists\u2019 associations across Europe. An open letter sent to the Council of Europe in 2023, demanding the removal of provisions that permit spying on journalists under the justification of \u201cnational security\u201d, was signed by 60 journalists\u2019 associations and NGOs<\/a> from EU Member States, highlighting the possibility of their abuse by governments seeking to suppress media freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following these criticisms, the provisions mentioning \u201cnational security\u201d as a permitted reason for surveillance of journalists were removed from the final version of the law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although experts agree that the final version provides a certain degree of protection for journalists against spying and surveillance that did not previously exist (scandals involving the use of spyware to surveil journalists were recorded in recent years in several EU countries such as Hungary<\/a>, Poland<\/a> and Greece<\/a>), they emphasise that there is still room for abuse, especially when it comes to spyware (link<\/a>, link<\/a>, link<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, the European Media Freedom Act allows surveillance, searches and detention of media workers in specific situations, namely in investigations of serious crimes and with a judicial warrant. Although many associations and individuals recognised the potential dangers and abuses of these legal provisions, it is difficult to interpret them as a possibility of arresting journalists who \u201cdisagree with Brussels\u2019 policies\u201d or who deny climate change, as Epoha claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are no provisions in the law that explicitly mention such a possibility, nor any insinuation that a government could spy on certain journalists because of the content they publish about climate change or anything similar, nor is this mentioned in the numerous expert criticisms of the law. The disputed provisions mainly relate to surveillance aimed at obtaining information about journalistic sources or confidential communications that media workers have with their sources, which are part of a criminal investigation.According to the facts from this analysis, the claim that the European Media Freedom Act allows the arrest and spying on journalists who \u201cdisagree with the policies\u201d of the European Union is rated as manipulation of facts<\/strong>. The claim that this law allows the arrest of journalists who deny climate change or spread disinformation about public health crises is rated as conspiracy theory<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Original article\u00a0(in Bosnian) was published on 15\/8\/2025; Author:\u00a0Nerma \u0160ehovi\u0107 The portal Epoha published a manipulative article about the European Media Freedom Act, falsely claiming that it was adopted to close down and spy on journalists who \u201cdisagree with Brussels\u2019 policies\u201d, that is, who spread disinformation on public health or deny climate change. On August 11, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":11737,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[316],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-checks"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11736","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11736"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11736\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11738,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11736\/revisions\/11738"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11737"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}