By Gaetano MASCIULLO

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In the name of an Orwellian notion of freedom, we risk creating a fragile and dependent market where global platforms remain the uncontested masters.

Оn August 8, 2025, the European Media Freedom Act was implemented, purportedly to guarantee freedom of expression for the media and the right to information for citizens. But is that really the case? A closer analysis of this law brings to mind the slogan of the supranationalist socialist regime portrayed in George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel 1984—“Freedom is Slavery.”

The law entered into force on May 7, 2024, but only became fully effective across all member states of the Union on August 8th of this year, with Ursula von der Leyen announcing it with satisfaction on X.

According to the official page of the European Commission, the Act introduces “new rules to protect pluralism and independence” of media outlets, whether public or private. These rules are intended to safeguard media from unjustified removal of online content by very large online platforms (as recently occurred in Italy) and to ensure editorial independence within the cross-border market, free from undue pressure by any kind of lobby—including, presumably, those stemming from political parties, governments, and bureaucrats of various affiliations.

Moreover, the Act is also intended to protect journalists and media outlets from potential measures by member states aimed at limiting their independence and freedom of speech. Such measures include detention, sanctions, interception, intrusive surveillance, inspection, publication bans, obligations to disclose sensitive or confidential information, and other similar actions designed to restrict press freedom, such as prior censorship, unjustified revocation of licences, or seizure of devices.

However, at the same time, the Act states in Article 4, paragraph 4, that—by way of derogation from what has been said so far—all member states may adopt these very measures, provided that they are foreseen by national or Union law and that they are “justified on a case-by-case basis by an overriding reason of public interest” and are “proportionate” and “subject to prior authorisation by a judicial authority or an independent and impartial decision-making authority.” Furthermore, the Act also permits the use of intrusive surveillance software against journalists and media outlets, again under the same conditions.

A Member State may adopt these measures if the journalist or media outlet is under investigation for offences punishable by a custodial sentence or a security measure involving deprivation of liberty with a maximum duration of at least three years, as listed in the Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002). Among these offences are also “racism and xenophobia.”

It is also recommended that a European authority meet annually with internet platforms, service representatives, and civil society organisations to monitor, among other things, initiatives aimed at combating disinformation. This task could be carried out by the European Media Services Board, a formally independent committee composed of representatives from the media regulators of each member state and one representative from the European Commission. Each member has voting rights, and decisions are made by a two-thirds majority.

The Act also entrusts the European Commission with the management of the EMSB Secretariat, thereby providing it de facto with two channels to influence the committee’s work. This, of course, is expected to ensure transparency and impartiality, since—it is assumed—the Brussels bureaucrats will always remain neutral.

Yet, the impartiality of European officials and commissioners is compromised for at least two reasons. First, they are nominated by—or even originate from—national governments and European political groups. Therefore, they already represent specific ideological agendas and interests. Second, although Brussels officials perceive themselves as guardians of the ‘common good’ of European peoples, they tend to conflate individual freedom with conformity. As a result, the true meaning behind terms like “pluralism” and “independence” in their intentions is not immediately clear.

As previously mentioned, if a journalist is suspected of “xenophobia or racism,” the member state could legitimately employ wiretapping, invasive software, and restrictive measures. Could such a criminal charge include—for example—controversial opinions on immigration, the defence of national identity, or criticism of Islam?

Moreover, one must not overlook the fact that the Act could lead many journalists to self-censor. For instance, an investigation into illegal immigration or foreign organised crime could be labelled as “racist” by more progressive political parties. This possibility might intimidate journalists, who may choose to remain silent, thereby hollowing out the promise of freedom enshrined in the Act.

As if that weren’t enough, the Act grants member states the power to “assess” whether mergers, acquisitions, or situations in which a few entities control a significant portion of the information market might have a “negative impact,” meaning a reduced presence of sources and perspectives. However, this assessment is unlikely to be truly objective. A government could deem the growth of a media group ‘risky’ simply because it challenges its positions.

If member states have the power to assess whether a media acquisition constitutes a “threat to pluralism,” every entrepreneurial operation in the media sector will be subject to the judgement of the political class. This means that the right to enterprise and association has already been placed under guardianship. The entrepreneur is no longer free to grow but depends on the benevolence of power. Has a mechanism of political reward and punishment not thus been created—one that stifles healthy competition? Economic freedom could become a bargaining chip: rewarded if aligned with the ideological mainstream, obstructed if divergent.

Paradoxically, by artificially fragmenting the European media market, there is a risk of weakening the media and rendering it unable to compete with digital giants that are not subject to the same level of scrutiny. In the name of an Orwellian notion of freedom, we risk creating a fragile and dependent market, where global (and non-European) platforms remain the uncontested masters.

The legislative process includes an additional milestone set for May 8, 2027, when the regulation concerning the personalisation of content offered to users based on their interests will come into force. These rules are intended to govern the use of algorithms and protect citizens from manipulation, information filters, and potential fake news. However, the underlying issue remains the same: who will decide what is true and what is false? To borrow the ancient adage of Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? Especially considering that, in this case, the watchmen are the Brussels bureaucracy.

Original article:   The European Conservative