ACADEMIC PREPARATION KIT 1st Digital National Selection Conference of EYP Czech Republic 2020
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 WORDS OF WELCOME 3 THE EU AND YOU 4 TOPICS 4 CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS I 6 WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND GENDER EQUALITY 10 CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS II 18 LEGAL AFFAIRS 21 HUMAN RIGHTS 26 CULTURE AND EDUCATION 30
2 TOC
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
WORDS OF WELCOME Dear Delegates, If you are reading this, you almost made it! The session is right behind the corner, and it was a bumpy ride to get here. Firstly, we had to postpone the session by more than seven months and after that, we had another difficult decision to make. We had to say goodbye to the beautiful city of Kroměříž and transform into a digital version. With that, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the 1st Digital National Selection Conference of EYP CZ 2020. Here you can find the Academic Preparation Kit that has been carefully drafted by the Chairs’ Team. Please take the time to read all of the six Topic overviews we have prepared for you. It will provide you with the essential knowledge of each topic, which will be quite useful for you doing the whole session. All topic overviews follow the same design and are structured into six distinctive chapters. The Topic overviews start with a chapter called “Relevance of the topic” which generally outlines the issue to the reader and gives general knowledge. The next chapter “Key conflicts” focuses more on the issue at hand and tries to show all the complexities of the issue. The third chapter “Key actors” introduces different participants to the issue and their connections. The chapter “Measures in place” presents past and present attempts of solving said issues. The fifth chapter “Questions” tries to stimulate your thinking and makes you challenge the topic and the issue at hand. The last chapter “Links for further research” provides you with further useful sources for your research and to deepen your knowledge of the issue. Let us make the most of our digital session during this challenging time! Yours, Filip President of the 1st Digital National Selection Conference of EYP CZ 2020
3 WOW
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
THE EU AND YOU Here are some more in-depth resources for your research given the context of the EU. These can be used in combination with your Topic Overviews as these will help you understand what actually goes on behind the scenes. Note that you can always get in touch with your chair to receive an exhaustive guide on the EU.
1. Explained: EU Institutions • A first overview: The EU institutions explained by their presidents • All EU institutions and bodies summarised
2. Explained: Motivations for EU integration • Overview of the history of the EU
3. Explained: EU competences and decision-making • Video explaining law-making in the EU • Legislative powers of the European Parliament • Visualisation of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure • Division of competences between the EU and the Member States
TOPICS Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I (LIBE I) Is the press truly free? As the level of freedom of the press varies throughout the Member States, how can the EU ensure that all the citizens have access to free unbiased press?
Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) Where are the female journalists in Europe’s media? Taking into account that European journalism is male-dominated, should the EU take steps against this phenomenon?
Committee Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs II (LIBE II) A contribution to transparency or a threat to security? Following the Snowden, WikiLeaks and Panama Papers cases, what should be the approach of the Member States towards whistleblowers’ disclosures of sensible information?
COMMITTEEE ON Legal Affairs (JURI) Hate speech versus freedom of speech? As the border between the two is rather thin and social networks, such as Facebook, give everyone a platform to speak, where should the EU draw the line between them?
4 TOPICS
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
Committee on Human Rights (DROI) Internet as a human right? The United Nations declared free access to the Internet as one of the basic human rights. Taking into account that nowadays most sources of information are only accessible online, what should the stance of the EU be?
Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) How does one detect fake news? With many media spreading possible disinformation or propaganda, which in some cases might result in extremist actions being taken, how can the EU ensure that its citizens of all generations can identify proper sources of information?
5 TOPICS
COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS I Is the press truly free? As the level of freedom of the press varies throughout the Member States, how can the EU ensure that all the citizens have access to free unbiased press? by Jakub Hejdukiewicz (PL) 1. Relevance of the topic Freedom of expression and access to information are two of the fundamental human rights, and the existence of completely free and unbiased press is a vital part of it. And although many European countries are rated as the ones having the strongest freedom of the press (amongst them Norway, Sweden and Finland),1 in other countries the situation can be much worse. Suppression of freedom of speech is classified as governments or political institutions trying to silence journalists reporting on corruption and power abuse cases. An example of this can be Bulgaria, where the government is reported to have been silencing the journalists trying to cover corruption cases.2 The most extreme situation occurred in February 2018 in Slovakia, where the murder of the investigative journalist focusing mostly on tax fraud cases Ján Kuciak and his fiancée sparked a wave of protests.3 This resulted in the resignation of the prime minister of Slovakia, whose connection with Italian mafia was described by Kuciak in his last unfinished article. His case was one of the 3 cases of journalists being killed within the EU in 2018.4 Those cases are the most extreme instances of violation of freedom of the press within the EU and rather an exception, yet they still occur. The other type of infringements on freedom of the press are cases when state governments are using public media outlets, especially television and radio, to promote the actions of the currently governing party. This behaviour is a clear case of abuse of power as public media outlets are the ones supposed to be the most credible and should not favour any political parties because often they have an advantage over private outlets due to being publicly funded. Such cases can be found in a few EU countries such as Greece, Croatia, Hungary and Poland.5 The situation is especially disturbing in Hungary, where the press is increasingly being monopolised by pro-government oligarchs,6 and in Poland, where public media outlets 1 2019 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX. Reporters without borders. https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2019 2 2019 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX. Reporters without borders. https://rsf.org/en/bulgaria 3 Slovakia grapples with murdered journalist's last story. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43226567 4 Four journalists killed in Europe in 2018. European Federation of Journalists. https://europeanjournalists.org/ blog/2018/12/31/four-journalists-killed-in-europe-in-2018/ 5 2019 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX. Reporters without borders. https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2019 6 Freedom of press in Europe no longer self-evident. Euractiv. https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/freedom-ofpress-in-europe-no-longer-self-evident/
6 LIBE I
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
openly promote the governing party’s actions. The other disturbing tendency is the increasing monopolisation of media institutions that leads to the creation of influential medium consortia. It is a result of big media outlets buying smaller ones or merging with them. This process can be especially dangerous if a given consortium controls different types of media outlets (press, radio, TV) as then they are able to become the sole information provider in a given country or region. Bearing in mind all the different aspects of infringements on freedom of the press, the EU has a difficult task of ensuring that its every citizen has equal access to free and unbiased press.
2. Key conflicts When trying to protect the freedom of the press, the EU has a complicated task, as control over media is completely dependent on Member States with the EU only having supportive competences regarding regulation of the media. Additionally, in some instances Member States are unwilling to implement the decisions of EU institutions and the EU lacks leverage to implement them. At the same time, all the Member States are signatories of various international conventions where the rights to freedom of expression and access to information are guaranteed. Yet in many cases there are no means to execute those guarantees and signatories are just trusted to follow the regulations. Another question is the role of the EU in protecting independent journalists and ensuring that their voice can be heard and not overshadowed by large media companies, yet at the same time respecting the rights of those companies. Because the plurality of media sources is one of the basic requirements for the free press, the EU has to ensure that no company is able to monopolise the markets. Moreover, in many instances politicians are either owners of or shareholders in media companies, which raises the question of maintaining political objectivity by those outlets due to the clear conflict of interest. Such situation allows them to present favourable coverage of their actions in outlets that they have control over, often distorting reality. Such outlets can also overshadow independent journalists reporting about instances of abuse of power, which neutralises their role in exposing such cases and can allow corrupted politicians to stay in office. Another issue is the fact that approaches of Member States in the field can vary drastically and different cultures of journalism are present, often as a result of the history of a given country (for example strong censorship in the past). Additionally, different issues can be considered ‘taboo’ topics in different countries and different unwritten norms can limit the journalists in their work. The public media outlets are supposed to be the most objective ones and provide all the citizens with objective and unbiased information equally representing parties from the entire political spectrum. Yet in some cases those outlets are openly promoting agenda representing only the interests of one of the parties and while doing so benefiting from the fact that they have easier access to the audience and are publicly funded. What is more, in such instances the public does not have control over what is being publicised by such an outlet as it is not subject to any control by public agencies due to the fact that it is a part of the state apparatus. Governments can also openly promote such outlets over private independent ones by passing legislation favouring public media.
7 LIBE I
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
A very important role that the independent journalists play is examining and publicising the corruption and power abuse cases. Thus they are a guarantee of respect for basic democratic values. The EU has to develop measures precluding the Member States’ governments or any political organisations from silencing journalists to cover up their actions, as even an atmosphere of potential threat can make journalists hesitate before criticising someone. That is why fostering the atmosphere of openness and open public debate is of vital importance as it is the Member States’ duty to grant journalists full protection of the law and the judiciary in order to create an enabling environment for their journalistic activities.7
3. Key Actors • The Council of Europe: An international organisation monitoring how respected human rights are on the European continent. Its body tasked with press related issues is the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI). Its main mission regarding the topic is promoting an enabling environment for freedom of expression, underpinned by legal guarantees for independence and diversity of media and safety of journalists and other media actors.8 • European Commission: EU’s executive body tasked with ensuring the freedom of press within the EU. • Member States: They have the control over legislation concerning media companies and it is up to them to regulate them, although clear differences in approach are visible across different states. They also play an important role as their governments have influence or direct control over public media outlets. • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF): A non-profit organisation that promotes, protects and defends the right to a free media and freedom of expression throughout Europe. • Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): It is the highest judicial institution within the EU where the EU citizens can appeal if they believe their national courts decisions were unfair. • European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): An international human rights court to which EU citizens can appeal if they believe their national courts have breached one of the basic human rights in the judicial process. It works in close cooperation with the Council of Europe. • Non-governmental organisations (NGOs): Many independent organisations that monitor the state of freedom of press in the EU and actively try to protect it. The most influential ones in the EU are Reporters Without Borders and the European Federation of Journalists. • Media outlets: They are subject to the regulations passed by the Member States but their actions as independent companies can also greatly influence the situation.
7 Safety of Journalists. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/safety-of-journalists 8 Freedom of Expression - Media. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/media
8 LIBE I
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
4. Measures in place • Universal Declaration of Human Rights: An international convention outlining in article 19 that “right to freedom of opinion and expression” and to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” are fundamental human rights. • European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): An international convention through which the signatories pledge to preserve human rights, freedom of expression being one of them. • EU accession requirements: As part of the Lisbon treaty the EU set stricts rules stating that a given country cannot join the Union without fulfilling a range of criteria, with ensuring the freedom of press being one of them.9 • The EU’s action aiming to preserve the freedom of press consist of 3 main pillars: • Legal assistance: EU institutions provide legal guidance and support for Member States with drafting new laws concerning freedom of the press. • Monitoring: EU institutions are monitoring both the Member States and candidate countries examining the current situation. • Financial support is the main way of fostering press liberty through actions of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA). Its actions involve establishing a network of journalist associations, building trust in the media by raising the general awareness of press related issues, reinforcing judicial expertise by helping to enforce the decisions of European Court of Human Rights in the field of freedom of expression, and an EU award scheme for investigative journalism that involves a range of prizes for journalists. • EU actions especially target western Balkan countries. EU’s actions undertaken in the region where the situation is least stable, focusing on fostering the freedom of expression in both EU and non-EU Balkan countries.
5. Questions • What measures can the EU take to make the Member States follow its decisions regarding the protection of free press? • How can the EU ensure that a company is unable to monopolise the media market in a given Member State? • What tools can the EU use to monitor the situation in each of the Member State? • How can the EU effectively cooperate with NGOs to foster the free press?
6. Links for further research • Reporters Without Borders comparison of the state of free press across the world • European Commission’s site outlining its actions aiming to protect the freedom of press within EU • Council of Europe website outlining its actions in the field 9 Freedom of expression and media. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/policy-highlights/freedom-of-expression-and-media_en
9 LIBE I
COMMITTEE ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND GENDER EQUALITY Where are the female journalists in Europe’s media? Taking into account that European journalism is male-dominated, should the EU take steps against this phenomenon? by Kristína Zídková (CZ) & Lucie Bambušková (CZ) 1. Relevance of the topic In 2020, women in the European Union make up more than half of the population. However, female journalists are still severely under-represented, as the news coverage in Europe is dominated by male journalists. According to the research conducted by the European Journalism Observatory (EJO), which was focused on journalistic situations in 11 European countries, just 23% of articles and stories were written by only women, compared to 41% by only men. Almost half of all the pictures (43%) that were published were just men, compared to just 15% featuring only women. The countries that had the biggest gender imbalance in bylines were Italy (63% of bylines belonged to men and just 21% to women) and Germany (58% of bylines were male and just 16% female).1 Another study shows that in 2015, women were most visible in news on science and health, and least present in political and economic news, topics that command greater broadcast airtime and print news space.2 1 Where Are the Female Journalists in Europe’s Media? European Journalism Observatory. https://en.ejo.ch/research/where-are-all-the-women-journalists-in-europes-media 2 Just 24% of news sources are women. Here’s why that's a problem. World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/women-representation-in-media/
10 FEMM
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
Not only does the industry lose skills and talent, but this loss makes it less capable of holding the government to account – particularly on issues of minority rights that female journalists are more apt to cover.3 Everyone has the right to be treated with dignity, equality and respect. Unfortunately, the field of European journalism is still battling this problem. So why does this gender imbalance exist in the European media?
2. Key Conflicts Female journalists tend to leave their job earlier because of pervasive precariousness, dissatisfaction about working conditions, a lack of appreciation on the part of company hierarchies, the working atmosphere in newsrooms and the physical and mental consequences of working as a journalist such as illnesses, abnormal stress and exhaustion. Even the male colleagues acknowledged that the media environment is a male-dominated world in which they feel that women must prove their skills more. Worse still, the study shows that women journalists earn far less than their male counterparts. The average income of female journalists is 16% lower than their male colleagues.4 Journalists are often criticised. In addition to remorse about professional activity, female journalists are also the target of unflattering sexist narratives and more personal comments. Although women in journalism are at graduate level, they are underrepresented in management and top-level positions both in Europe and worldwide. According to the International Women’s Media Foundation on Global Report,5 nearly two-thirds of reporters are male and this gender imbalance is even more perceptible at top management level, where 73% of the positions are held by men and 27% by women. The report identified a glass ceiling for women in 20 of 59 nations studied. Most commonly, these invisible barriers were found in middle and senior management levels. The representation of women in public service media in the EU is low on average in both strategic and operational high-level posts and on boards (in 2017: 35.8% for executive posts, 37.7% for non-executive posts and 33.3% as board members).6 According to the project7 conducted by European Union, 16% of CEOs and 25% of board members of media organisations worldwide were women in 2012, and in EU public service media 31% of DGs (Director-Generals) were women in 2019. In 2014 women journalists received three times as many abusive comments 3 Female Journalists Face Violent Abuse Online. Journalism And Democracy Are Losing Out. Young European Federalists https://www.thenewfederalist.eu/female-journalists-face-violent-abuse-online-journalism-and-democracy-are?lang=fr 4 Belgium: Study shows women journalists are leaving the job. European Federation of Journalists. https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2019/05/09/belgium-study-shows-woman-journalists-are-leaving-the-job/ 5 Global Report on the Status of Women in the News Media, IWMF https://www.iwmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IWMF-Global-Report.pdf 6 European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2018 on gender equality in the media sector in the EU (2017/2210(INI)) https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e74216ca-09da-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-HTML/source-117106243 7 Achieving gender equality and promoting diversity in the European Audiovisual sector, EJF https://europeanjournalists.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/European-project-and-publication_Murphy.pdf
11 FEMM
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
on Twitter as their male counterparts. 24% of the persons heard, read about or seen in 2015 in newspaper, television and radio news worldwide were women. A 2018 survey showed that two thirds of female respondents identifying as media workers had been threatened or harassed online at least once.
3. Key Actors • European Platform of the Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) provides a forum for informal discussion and exchange of views between regulatory authorities in the broadcasting field, for exchange of information about common issues of national and European broadcasting regulation. • The Council of Europe has attached great importance to gender balance over the last few decades as gender equality is a necessary condition for human rights to achieve genuine democracy. Over the years, the Council of Europe has adopted a number of standards and instruments promoting gender equality, including the Council of Europe Gender Equality Strategy 2018–2023.8 • The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) is a non-profit European Cooperative Society, the main goal is to preserve and defend media freedom by monitoring violations, providing practical support and engaging diverse stakeholders across Europe. • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) is the largest organisation of journalists in Europe, which is fighting for social and professional rights of journalists working in all sectors of the media across Europe. • International Women's Media Foundation (IWMF) is an organisation working internationally to elevate the status of women in the media, which has created programs to help women in the media develop practical solutions to the obstacles they face in their careers and lives.
4. Measures in Place • The Belgian Association of Professional Journalists (AJP), a member of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) launched a web tool Expertalia9, an expert directory for media professionals with the aim to diversify media sources in media reporting. • ECPMF provides a service called Women’s Reporting Point for female journalists who get threats of rape or sexual and abusive comments. • UNESCO launched The Global Alliance on Media and Gender (GAMAG), which is a worldwide, multi-stakeholder network of individuals and organisations working together to increase gender equality in and through the media and ICT.
8 Council of Europe Gender Equality Strategy 2018-2023 https://rm.coe.int/strategy-en-2018-2023/16807b58eb 9 Expertalia, https://expertalia.be/
12 FEMM
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
• GAMAG emerged through an enduring, global movement – led by women’s media activism, scholarship and professional practice – which has generated a wide-ranging critique of issues related to gender imbalance and inequality in media employment and media content. The overriding concern is that inadequate participation and skewed representation influence public perceptions of gender roles and women’s abilities, both within and across societies. GAMAG works to achieve gender equality in and through the media and ICT in all formats and locations and across different forms of ownership. • European Union also created a funded project, the Advancing Gender Equality in the Media Industries (AGEMI). AGEMI is launching its web platform to build bridges between educators, media and media students to improve gender equality in media content and in the newsrooms.
5. Questions • How can we encourage women to be more present in journalism? • What can we do to prevent any kind of harassment towards female journalists? • Why is journalism thought of as a male-dominated job and how can we change the public opinion? • What is the role of social media on the gender imbalance in journalism?
6. Links for further research • Global Report on the Status of Women in the News Media (2011) • Women on the move, by Creative Europe MEDIA (2019) • Getting the balance right, Gender equality in journalism (2009) • Internet Governance – Council of Europe Strategy 2016–2019 Democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the digital world • What challenges do female journalists face?
13 FEMM
COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS II A contribution to transparency or a threat to security? Following the Snowden, WikiLeaks and Panama Papers cases, what should be the approach of the Member States towards whistleblowers’ disclosures of sensible information? by Sophie Serebryanaya (CZ), Kristýna Kvapilová (CZ) 1. Relevance of the topic Leaking information is an issue causing a lot of debate. In the past 15 years, there have been three major cases connected to this topic: Edward Snowden’s leak of CIA information based on massive worldwide phone tracking; Panama Papers, which showed us the Mossack Fonseca case; and WikiLeaks run by Julian Assange, a big website for leaking information. All three of these cases have one thing in common: a significant disclosure of sensible information. Of course, these are not the only cases. Unlawful activities can happen in any organisation and those who work in these organisations are usually the first to know. If the issues are not addressed, they can cause harm to public interest, however, whistleblowers often face consequences like getting fired or being attacked in public places. 81% of Europeans indicated that they did not report corruption that they experienced or witnessed.1 It is unimaginable how this statistic would change if whistleblowers were encouraged instead of punished. Not only would encouraging whistleblowers to speak up help prevent abuses of law, the lack of effective whistleblower protection negatively impacts the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media. Is there truly freedom of expression if those who speak up are punished for it?
2. Key Conflicts The first conflict regarding blowing the whistle happens before the act: it is the internal conflict that leads to the disclosure of information. The main motivation for doing so is altruistic, i.e. the desire to put an end to unethical practises within an organisation, although some could be influenced by personal reasons, e.g. revenge.
1 2017 Special Eurobarometer on corruption. The European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2176
18 LIBE II
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
The act of blowing the whistle is considered courageous and noble by some, but what are some problems that could arise from it? The second type of conflict to emerge is most likely within the organisation, be it between the whistleblower and their employer or another employee. An anonymous reporting mechanism, e.g. a hotline, gives people more confidence to speak up and benefits the employer since they are able to receive criticism.2 Should the case go further, leaking sensitive information can cause damage to public trust and even a threat of national security. There are cases of whistleblowers “getting it wrong” and causing unintentional harm to others involved.3 Informing the public about the wrongdoings of others could be viewed negatively by some, hence the media often use words like ‘traitor’ or ‘defector’. This bad publicity is one of the reasons why some decide to never blow the whistle, along with fearing for their relationships at work, which can go as far as fear of termination, suspension and mistreatment by other employees. Some speak of anxiety, flashbacks and even suicidal thoughts in up to 10% of cases.4
3. Key Actors • The European Commission is the executive body of the EU. Since consumer protection, justice and security are shared competences, the Commission can propose binding law to tackle the issue. • National governments are responsible for implementing EU policies. Moreover, national governments may act on their own and thus propose binding legislation and limit the danger. • European citizens are the prime part of everything happening. It is important to uphold their interest. They should be aware of what is going on and whether they are for example being tracked or whether they are safe. • Whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, Panama Papers and WikiLeaks are the ones who are undertaking the disclosure of information. They are usually volunteers or ordinary citizens who have some access to important information. • The European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) is an EU body, primarily concerned with collecting and analysing data on fundamental human rights, in principle referencing those listed in the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. 2 How whistleblowing helps companies. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. 3 The Whistle-blower Who Got It Wrong. The Walrus (2019) 4 The emotional sequelae of whistleblowing: findings from a qualitative study. Peters, Kath; Luck, Lauretta; Hutchinson, Marie; Wilkes, Lesley.; Andrew, Sharon; Jackson, Debra.
19 LIBE II
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
4. Measures in place The most important measure already in place is the Whistleblower Protection Directive, which focuses on protecting persons who report breaches of Union law in both public and private sectors. It establishes safe channels for reporting information, both within an organisation and to public authorities, prohibits direct or indirect retaliation and criminal prosecution, equal rights for national security whistleblowers challenging denial or loss of security clearances, and provision of psychological support to deal with the stress of harassment. However, the Directive is unclear about specific situations, such as ‘duty speech’, a situation where it is one’s job is to expose and investigate one’s employer’s unlawful conduct, e.g. an auditor. It is unclear whether this person would be considered a whistleblower and whether the protection would apply to them.5 All Member States will have to meet the minimum standards by 17 December 2021.6 Currently, whistleblower protection policies differ vastly between Member States and usually only cover a limited number of people in specific sectors, e.g. accounting. Apart from local laws, many NGOs advocare for more comprehensive and stricter legal protections for whistleblowers, e.g. Public Concern at Work (PCaW) or Blueprint for Free Speech. Some other methods of whistleblower protection include anonymous content sharing software like Tor.
5. Questions • Should whistleblowers be rewarded for reporting even if the consequences of them blowing the whistle are not what they expected and endanger the public? • Is informing the media the safest way to go around whistleblowing, keeping in mind that the media could be prone to sensationalism and misinformation? Should it be penalised? • Is informing the media the safest way to go around whistleblowing, keeping in mind that the media could be prone to sensationalism and mdisinformation? Should it be penalised?
6. Links for further research • A video explaining what whistleblowing is and how whistleblowers can be protected, as well as some case studies. Although it does a great job in introducing the basic concepts, it is focused on American whistleblowing policies. • A Forbes article talking in more detail about the dilemma of blowing the whistle and the emotional damage of doing so. • A compilation of different whistleblowing cases throughout history. 5 European Parliament Panel Approves Whistleblower Protections for all EU Countries, Journalists to Receive Whistleblower Protections under Updated Directive. The Government Accountability Project. 6 What is happening with the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive in the different countries? WhistleB.
20 LIBE II
COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS Hate speech versus freedom of speech? As the border between the two is rather thin and social networks, such as Facebook, give everyone a platform to speak, where should the EU draw the line between them? by Laura Eklová (CZ) 1. Relevance of the topic Since the beginning of 2018, IT companies in Germany were forced to bolster up their employee numbers to make the fight against hate speech more efficient. The reason was a new law enacted on 1 January called the Network Enforcement Act,1 or NetzDG, demanding that all IT companies2 remove all “obviously illegal” content from their platforms within 24 hours of receiving a notification or face fines of up to €50 million. From the moment of its enactment, the law has been a very controversial matter; many claim that it infringes on the freedom of speech,3 and that owners and moderators4 of social media platforms are given the roles of judges where professional expertise is needed. However, the extent and impact of hate speech is not to be denied – in fact, both the online and offline environment have seen it rise over the recent years.5 The surge of incidents thought to have resulted from hate speech has become a cause of concern, be that in the form of invective, discriminatory behaviour6 or acts of violence. Propaganda and acts of advocating hatred or inciting to hostility are all against International law, yet the world has seen such acts flourish in recent times. Any statement implying support of discrimination has an indefinite effect on the behaviour of others which is more likely to escalate when such statements are made by influential figures or high-ranking political authorities. Simultaneously, far-right political parties have registered a significant increase in popularity all across Europe,7 and extremist organisations have been gaining the public’s attention by protests that often end in violence.8 1 Tough new German law puts tech firms and free speech in spotlight. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2018/jan/05/tough-new-german-law-puts-tech-firms-and-free-speech-in-spotlight. 2 Social media companies, such as Facebook, Instagram etc. 3 German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-hatecrime/german-hate-speech-law-tested-as-twitter-blocks-satire-account-idUSKBN1ES1AT 4 Employees of IT companies with powers such as deleting content or banning users from a platform that the company provides. 5 Rise in hate speech alarming, UN warns. Independent.ng. https://www.independent.ng/rise-in-hate-speech-alarming-unwarns/. 6 Sinophobia: How a virus reveals the many ways China is feared. The BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/worldasia-51456056 7 Statistics by The Populist. https://popu-list.org/explore-data/ 8 Death toll in French “yellow vest” protests rises to nine. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests-idUSKCN1OJ1IV
21 JURI
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
Digital platforms are only aggravating the issue, since hate speech occurring online often inspires others to display discriminatory behaviour offline, which may in turn result in abuse or violence. 9Fake news is another factor contributing to the spread of hate speech, as it is often crafted with the intention to inspire fear and incite readers against particular groups or minorities, and can result in violence when taken into extreme. In the wake of such events, many have begun to question the efficiency of current legislation, some taking action to bring about a better balance between free speech and illegal hate speech, before the current situation escalates into further discrimination or even violation of human rights.10
2. Key conflicts It should be noted that hate speech by itself is not illegal – committing a hate crime is. In order for hate speech to be considered against the law, it must be delivered with the intention to cause harm. In other words, expressing distaste or hatred is not considered illegal unless it provokes illegal action, such as acts of violence or discrimination. In 2016, a report carried out among 10 Member States found that there are significant disparities in what constitutes illegal hate speech,11 even despite a number of International legal institutions attempting to harmonise EU hate speech laws. The study reports that the disparities are, among other things, caused by a lack of proper transposition12 of international legislation or by pre-existent domestic laws providing for extra prohibition not covered by international legislation. Despite additional measures being taken since then, critics of the structure of European hate speech laws have abounded. Among the staunchest critics is the European Digital Rights, claiming that those measures are largely ineffective, public-relations driven and on the verge of jeopardising freedom of speech online. 13 Meanwhile, individuals, groups and public figures have gone public with xenophobic statements, sparking lively debates all across the European Union – where one camp supports new legislation, arguing that the current one is lacking,14 the other claims that such ideas endanger freedom of expression. Many have taken the middle road, arguing that while the current hate speech laws are inde9 Companies ‘failing’ to address offline harm incited by online hate: UN expert. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1049671 10 Hate speech ‘on notice’ as UN chief launches new plan to ‘identify, prevent and confront’ growing scourge. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/06/1040731 11 Report by MANDOLA. http://mandola-project.eu/m/filer_public/7b/8f/7b8f3f88-2270-47ed-8791-8fbfb320b755/mandola-d21.pdf 12 The implementation of EU directives into a Member State’s domestic law. 13 Freedom of expression. European Digital Rights. https://edri.org/theme/freedom-of-expression/. 14 Digital Services Act - A Vital Step Towards A Better Internet. Counter Extremism Project. https://www.counterextremism.com/press/digital-services-act-vital-step-towards-better-internet
22 JURI
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
ed cause for concern, there is nonetheless a need for strong hate speech legislation – only legislation that is different and more efficient which would not put freedom of speech at risk.15 In recent years, following a spike in the spread of fake news, measures have been taken16 to reduce the spread of disinformation due to the impact they have on public opinions, raising even more concern, among many, about the internet being put to censorship where it is supposed to be a globalised platform supporting unrestricted sharing of information. The greatest issue which critics attribute to this move is the fact that social media platform moderators are employees of those same IT companies, and tend not to have a satisfactory level of legal expertise. However, that is not the greatest issue – while proving whether online content contains false information is possible, content that is targeting minorities has a right not to be deleted as long as it does not incite illegal action. However, emphasising the negative aspects of certain issues – without necessarily promoting a violent solution to those issues – may in some cases serve as an aggravation of the issue of hate speech.17 The problem is that such articles and news reports are protected as a right of freedom of expression, and so cannot be removed unless they specifically incite acts of violence.
3. Key actors • The European Commission is a body of the European Union which holds the right of initiative – all new laws within the European Union must first be proposed by the Commission. Should the Member States agree there is need for international legislation regarding hate speech, it would need to be drafted by the Commission. It is also responsible for negotiating agreements between the European Union and other entities or issuing recommendations. • The Member States are bound by treaties to obey a “minimum”18 legislation on hate speech – however, they also hold the right to have reservations and create national legislation of their own; each nation has its own standards of what it permits as acceptable speech. • IT companies have the right, derived from their custom terms of service, to monitor and remove content from their platforms. Some are held accountable to the public by both legislative and non-legislative measures, thus preserving their reputation in the eyes of the public as well as receiving support. Their legal obligations vary from country to country. • European Digital Rights (EDRi) is an international association of non-governmental organisations advocating civil and human rights and freedoms across the internet. It highlights issues it deems dangerous to fundamental rights on the Internet, provides easy-to-grasp information and publishes articles in order to ensure that European legislation regarding the internet is in accordance with fundamental rights. 15 Is a new hate speech law killing German comedy? The BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-43831620 16 EU piles pressure on social media over fake news. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-internet-fakenews-idUSKBN1HX15D 17 How the media contributed to the migrant crisis. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/aug/01/media-framed-migrant-crisis-disaster-reporting 18 Outlawing incitement to hostility and violence and prosecute any groups based upon such behaviour, as well as the denial of crimes of genocide. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33178
23 JURI
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
• European society is where hate speech takes root and spreads, and is most commonly targeted against minorities within it, although any group or individual may become a victim. The way in which current and future laws affect society is fundamental to understand when creating legislation.
4. Measures in place • The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) instructs its State parties to make the spread of supremacism, acts of violence and incitement19 to such acts offences punishable by law, as well as to outlaw organisations promoting discrimination and the membership in such parties. ICERD is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).20 The treaty also declares that its State parties must guarantee the right to freedom of opinion and expression. All Member States of the European Union are party to the treaty. • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further affirms the contents of ICERD and elaborates on what “the freedom of speech” constitutes – the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds” through any platforms one may choose to use. All signatories must also ensure that propaganda and acts of advocating national, racial or religious hatred inciting to discrimination, hostility or violence are prohibited by law. The treaty is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (CCPR).21 As with ICERD, all Member States of the European Union are party to this treaty. • The EU Code of Conduct, implemented by the European Commission in 2016, is a non-legislative agreement between the Commission and a number of IT companies, aiming to tackle online hate speech. Social media companies such as Facebook or Twitter have been party to the agreement since its launch, and others such as Instagram have joined since. It was criticised by EDRi on grounds of being ineffective and dangerous to freedom of speech by making IT companies too influential.22 An evaluation from February 2019 reports that, overall, 89.9% of flagged content is reviewed within 24 hours, with 71.7% of that content being removed.23 • The European Commission’s Communication Tackling Illegal Content Online, published in response to the European Parliament’s call for legal action against online terrorist propaganda, lays down 19 The act of encouraging others to commit a crime. 20 CERD requires its State parties to submit a report on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures which they have adopted every two years or at request. The Committee then annually reports to the General Assembly of the United Nations. 21 CCPR requires its State parties to report regularly, usually once every four years. It examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of "concluding observations.” 22 Guide to the Code of Conduct on Hate Speech. European Digital Rights. https://edri.org/guide-code-conduct-hatespeech/ 23 Fourth evaluation on the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. The European Commission. https:// ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/code_of_conduct_factsheet_7_web.pdf
24 JURI
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
a set of guidelines and principles for online platforms, dedicated to facilitating practices for the prevention and removal of illegal content and disabling the access to it. Further expanded by a Recommendation in 2018, it has once again been criticised by EDRi for being driven purely by public relations as they do not believe the introduced measures will do much to improve the situation.24
5. Questions • How can “hate speech” be defined? • How does hate speech impact our day-to-day lives? • What is the self-regulation model and what role does it play in the media? What can be done to ensure that the model tackles hate speech efficiently? • Are there any EU countries where there is substantial cause for concern over freedom of speech being endangered?
6. Links for further research • UKIP candidate Mark Meechan linked to racist forum posts. The BBC. • Council of Europe's work on Hate Speech. Council of Europe.
24 Commission’s position on tackling illegal content online is contradictory and dangerous for free speech. European Digital Rights. https://edri.org/commissions-position-tackling-illegal-content-online-contradictory-dangerous-free-speech/.
25 JURI
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS Internet as a human right? The United Nations declared free access to the Internet as one of the basic human rights. Taking into account that nowadays most sources of information are only accessible online, what should the stance of the EU be? by Markel Kerejeta (ES) 1. Relevance of the topic In 2020, we live in a society in which the main source of seeking, receiving and imparting information and ideas seems to be the Internet. Thus, the United Nations has declared the access to it a basic human right. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “everyone has the ri- Average time spent online per day by US adults (2017) in hrs:min ght to (...) seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.1 Consequently, the lack of accessible internet connection nowadays poses a clear socio-economic disadvantage. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, this disadvantage has become more obvious, as due to the lockdowns and restrictive measures in almost every country of the world, the need of continuing with our lives in the most normal way in such an abnormal situation has made us become more dependent on the Internet, and therefore, inequality has grown.2 In 2019, the Internet had around 4.131 billion users worldwide3 and 462.15 million users in the EU,4 which is more than 53% of the world’s and 90% EU’s population respectively, and the number of Internet users keeps growing. The Internet is becoming one of the most important aspects of our daily lives. It can either be an educational, informative, leisure or work tool, but is that enough for it to be considered a human right? The UN implicitly states this in Article 19 of the UDHR. In addition, during the session held on 27 June 2016,5 this organisation highlighted the fact that the right to freedom of expression on the Internet is an issue of increasing interest. As they stated, the rapid pace of technological development is enabling individuals all over the world to use new information and communication technologies. 1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ 2 The lack of access to quality internet is not the only cause of the growth of inequalities since January 2020, but it is one of the main ones. 3 Internet usage worldwide - Statistics and facts. Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/1145/internet-usage-worldwide/ 4 Internet usage in the EU - Statistics and facts. Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/3853/internet-usage-in-europe/ 5 27 June 2016 United Nations’ General Assembly’s Resolution. United Nations Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session34/Pages/ResDecStat.aspx and https:// www.article19. org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf
26 DROI
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
Society will progressively start adopting more pro-Internet behaviours, as it has been doing since the early stages of the internet as a media platform and as a communication method since 1962,6 and especially in the past few months. Until the day that everyone can easily and freely access a standard quality internet connection,7 there will still be several inequalities between those who do and those who do not have access to the internet. In brief, trying to find a way to ensure internet access to everyone would be an extremely hard task for the UN and the EU, due to all the technical, political, economical and even cultural issues, but not aiming for internet access for everyone would be a disappointment for them as organisations that value human rights as their main goal. Then, how should it be done in order to respect everyone’s human rights but achieve their goal in a realistic way?
2. Key conflicts The main difficulty of this topic is finding a realistic way of ensuring that everyone has equal access to information distributed by the media. In order to achieve this, the UN has already declared free access to the Internet a basic human right. Nevertheless, it is up to the EU whether to accept it or not. The UN is a non-legislative organisation, in contrast with the EU or its Member States, which actually have legislative competences. However, even the EU cannot force any Member State to follow all the legislation. For the EU, competences in the field of rights are shared, meaning Member States should practice EU legislatives, but they have the autonomy to create their own laws on the matter. This means that the EU would have to introduce the Internet as a human right in its legislation in order to ensure that it is really respected, since right now, it is a mere recommendation by the UN that does not obligate the EU to follow it. The EU could decide not to include the Internet as a human right in its legislation, justifying that although it is the main, the Internet is not the only way of accessing media. Even though their use is significantly decreasing, other sources such as newspapers, television or radio still exist and are still used by the people. However, they cannot ignore the fact that the differences in internet usage cause significant inequalities among the people, which are: • Local inequalities: The location of the person determines the quality and accessibility of the Internet, for instance, Western European and North American countries in comparison with the rest of the world.8 • Gender inequality: In this case, being a male or female user determines the quality and accessibility of the Internet.9 • Inequality that people with disabilities suffer: In this last case, having or not having any kind of physical or psychological disability determines the quality and accessibility of the Internet.10 6 Digital divide or usage inequalities. Research gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311915798_Digital_Divide_or_Internet_Usage_Inequalities 7 Meaningful Connectivity — a new standard to measure internet access. Alliance for affordable Internet. https://a4ai.org/meaningful-connectivity-a-new-standard-to-measure-internet-access/ 8 Digital Divide or Internet Usage inequalities. Research gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311915798_Digital_Divide_or_Internet_Usage_Inequalities/link/586267e108ae6eb871ab172e/download 9 UN 27/06/2016 Session Resolution - Gender Inequality. United Nations. https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_ Statement_Adopted.pdf 10 UN 27/06/2016 Session Resolution - Inequalities people with disabilities suffer. United Nations. https://www.article19. org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf
27 DROI
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
But none of these inequalities are relevant if the main ones are ignored, which are economic inequalities. With economic inequalities, the economic status and economic situation completely determine not only whether a person can access a higher or lower standard internet connection, but also whether they can have access to it or not.11 This, added to all the previously mentioned inequalities, inevitably causes more inequalities, among which the ones related to digital literacy should be highlighted. Even though the number of internet users worldwide has more than tripled since 2005, four billion people still lack access to the Internet. Digital technologies are spreading rapidly, but digital dividends have lagged behind. Their potential for reducing poverty and accelerating growth is enormous, but access to technology on its own is insufficient to reduce poverty. As the internet spreads, it will be essential for children to have early exposure to ICT skills. Nevertheless, due to the digital illiteracy that still exists mainly due to all the previously mentioned inequalities, that is not possible yet. To end with, it is important to mention that one of the main conflicts regarding this topic is the lack of legislation and measures in place.
3. Key actors • The Human Rights Council (HRC) is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe that declared free access to the Internet a basic human right.12 • The European Commission (EC) is the executive body of the EU. It is in charge of promoting the general interest of the EU by proposing and enforcing legislation, as well as by implementing policies and proposing the EU budget. Thus, EC would be in charge of proposing and later enforcing all new legislation that is connected to the Internet. • The European Parliament (EP) is the legislative body of the EU. It is directly elected by citizens and besides being responsible for EU legislation, it also has supervisory and budgetary responsibilities. • Member States are each of the 27 sovereign European states that constitute the EU. Depending on type of legislation, the competences within the EU are exclusive, shared or supporting.13 Thus, the EU acts differently in each case. 11 Digital Technologies Have Spread Rapidly, But Digital Dividends Have Lagged Behind, says New World Bank Report. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/05/16/digital-technologies-have-spread-rapidly-but-digitaldividends-have-lagged-behind-says-new-world-bank-report 12 Human Rights Council. United Nations Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/AboutCouncil.aspx 13 Division of competences within the European Union. EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Aai0020
28 DROI
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
4. Measures in place As mentioned in the Key Conflicts section, there is a lack of legislation and measures in place regarding this topic. However, there is something to mention. On 16 May 2011, at the General Assembly of the HRC, the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was drafted that explored key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet.14 This report not only advocates for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a range of other human rights, and also promotes the progress of society as a whole. In addition to individuals’ right to access the Internet, the role of Member States is also explained. In chapter IV of the report, some of the ways in which Member States censor information online at an increasing rate are outlined. The main ways in which they do so are arbitrary blocking or filtering of content; criminalisation of legitimate expression; imposition of intermediary liability; disconnecting users from internet access, including on the basis of intellectual property rights law; cyberattacks, etc. By following the rules stated in this report, every user should be free to seek the information they want and to express themselves freely. However, there are of course some restrictions in a few limited cases in which human rights are not respected following the international human rights law. Although these cases in which international human rights law is ‘imposed’ and access to certain web pages is restricted, the rest of the report are mere recommendations that each state can decide to respect or not.
5. Questions • How would the EU make sure that everyone’s free access to the Internet as a human right is being respected? • In case the Internet became legally a human right within the EU, how should the EU react to people not wanting to follow it? • How should the EU find common ground between the people who advocate for the Internet as a human right, and people that do not?
6. Links for further research • Access to the Internet may now become a basic human right. Youtube. • Can the Internet be a human right?. Semantic Scholar. • Internet access is not a human right. New York Times. • A Human Right to Access the Internet? Problems and Prospects. Oxford Academic.
14 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Refworld. https://www.refworld.org/docid/50f3db632.html
29 DROI
COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION How does one detect fake news? With many media spreading possible disinformation or propaganda, which in some cases might result in extremist actions being taken, how can the EU ensure that its citizens of all generations can identify proper sources of information? by Íris Oliviera (PT), Marek Jankovský (CZ) 1. Relevance of the topic In 2015, an American Artist designed an exhibition called 'Printing out the internet' with the purpose of attracting attention to all the information available on the World Wide Web. However, as a study from 2007 found, printing out the entire internet would require roughly 305.5 billion pages, an equivalent of almost 75 million copies of the entire Harry Potter saga. Moreover, the numbers have risen in the past thirteen years.1 In the 21st century immense amounts of information are publicly accessible. They come in all media formats such as printed media, television, broadcasts, but mostly the internet. However, not all the information is reliable. Only in September 2020, at least 288 disinformation articles were reported, targeting countries throughout the entire world.2 But it is assumed that only a sliver of such articles are disclosed and reported. Moreover, disinformation is not only found in the form of digital articles. In the days prior to the European Parliament election, more than 600 groups and Facebook pages operating across all EU were reported to have spread disinformation and promoted content of parties they supported, generating over 763 million views.3 Despite policies in place,4 a lot of the content is still produced by bots and artificial intelligence. For example, a recent study found that roughly 25% of all tweets about climate change were generated by bots, mostly deconstructing scientific findings.5 With disinformation being difficult to identify, it is important for citizens to be able to distinguish reliable sources of information. Projects have been launched aiming to increase media literacy,6 and some countries—such as Finland—have successfully implemented educational programmes on the recognition of disinformation into their school curriculum.7 The occurring problem is that such projects mostly tar-
30 CULT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If you could print out the whole Internet. The Washington Post. Cases of disinformation monitored. EU vs DISINFORMATION. Action plan against disinformation - European Commission. European Commission. The EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech. European Commission. Quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots. The Guardian. Media and Information Literacy - Unesco. UNESCO. How Finland fights fake news in elementary schools. The Guardian.
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
get young people and not older age groups, who are considered both more vulnerable to disinformation and more likely to participate in spreading it.8 • Disinformation—false, inaccurate and misleading information, spread with the goal to influence public opinion, lower trust in institutions and traditional media and deceive people; it is also known as fake news or false news;9, 10 • Propaganda—systematic spreading of information, often in a biased or misleading way, with the goal of promoting a political cause or a particular point of view;11 • Media literacy—a set of abilities allowing a person to access, analyze, evaluate, create and understand media in a variety of forms. The main components of media literacy are being able to think critically about the content we receive, find reliable sources of information and distinguish the unreliable, false, or unsourced ones.12
2. Key Conflicts “On average, users over the age of 65 shared nearly seven times as many articles from fake news domains as the youngest age group.”13 According to this research published on the Science Advances journal,14 older people tend to be more involved in the spreading of disinformation than younger generations. However, most projects and workshops targeting fact-checking and fake-news awareness are focused on teenagers still frequenting school. Digital media literacy is almost always taken for granted by young people, Fig. 1: Average number of fake news shares by age group. as most were born in an ‘online world’. Nevertheless, older generations, who are now joining social media and other media outlets, seem to be the most vulnerable due to lack of ability to distinguish trustworthy news sources from non-factual ones. It is without a doubt easier to reach and bring awareness to youth who are mostly obliged to attend formal educational programmes by the Member States, but the fact that the older generations are having a growing impact on the dissemination of disinformation cannot be denied. Although the thought of restricting the content of media outlets to give citizens the chance of basing their opinions on truthful information might be alluring, the line which separates this and censorship is an extremely fine one. The balance between freedom of speech and the right of the public to be well informed makes it harder for legal policies based on disinformation to be made. On the other hand, electoral manipulation is a growing reality within the internet, especially social media. Financially and politically motivated stakeholders exploit times of political turmoil, such as the European parliament 2019 elections,15 to increase the spread 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Older people more likely to share fake news on Facebook. The Guardian. Disinformation - European Parliament - Europa EU. European Parliament. Disinformation - European Parliament - Europa EU. European Parliament. Definition, History, Techniques, Examples, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. What is Media Literacy? Center for Media Literacy. Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances. Science Advances journal. 2019 European election results. European Parliament.
31 CULT
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
of self-benefiting disinformation. Social media could often be used as a powerful tool in the electoral world. An impactful example could be the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal sourced by Facebook, when it was revealed that in an attempt to shift the 2016 US electoral results, Trump’s election team harvested information from individual voters in order to target them politically.16 A very real escalation of this would be cyber warfare, a relatively recent conflict that emerged with the growing availability of the internet throughout the world. Cyberspace has become a complex and easily accessible “globalised network of networks”.17 This availability, however, brings vulnerability with it. Disinformation can be used as a weapon and combined with other offensive mechanisms it can destabilize governments and political systems, creating internal and external conflicts. According to the global risks report of 2019,18 cyber attacks place fifth in terms of the likelihood of threat. Considering the ongoing pandemic which the world is facing, it is impossible to overlook the impacts disinformation has had on people’s response to COVID-19. More than anything else does this highlight the severity of the threat disinformation poses, putting lives and public health at risk.19
3. Key Actors • The European Commission20 is the European Union’s executive institution that draws proposals for the new European legislation and implements the decisions of the European Parliament21 and the Council of the European Union22. It is working to implement a clear, comprehensive and broad set of actions to tackle the spread and impact of online disinformation in Europe.23 The Action plan24 and the Code of practise25 on disinformation were both outlined by it. • The Member States are responsible for implementing national laws and policies to limit the creation and spread of disinformation; since education falls under the supporting-competences category,26 it is a responsibility of the Member States to implement changes in their education programmes to, for example, increase media literacy. • Disinformation websites can be seen in two ways: websites which disclose fake news as a form of warning or even as a way of news satire and websites which produce actual non-factual information in the hope that people are persuaded by them. • The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) is an organisation with the goal of identifying, exposing and explaining disinformation with open source research.27 With their world-leading digital forensic research lab, they can track global disinformation campaigns, fake news stories, covert military developments and subversive attempts against democracy while teaching the people to recognise disinfor-
32 CULT
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
The Cambridge Analytica Files. TheGuardian. Cyber: How big is the threat? European Parliament. The Global Risks Report 2019. World Economic Forum. During this coronavirus pandemic, 'fake news' is putting lives at risk: UNESCO. UN News. European Commission website. European Parliament website. Council of the European Union website. Tackling online disinformation. European Commission. Action plan against disinformation. European Commission. Code of practise on disinformation. European Commission. Division of competences within the European Union. EUR-Lex. About Us. Digital Forensic Research Lab.
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
mation. It is mainly a cooperation between the US and Europe, but it also works outside the two. Their goals are to expose and document human rights abuses and to build digital resilience around the world. • Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology28 is a body of the EU responsible for managing the digital agenda, communication networks, media freedom and pluralism, freedom of expression and tolerance. • Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are usually non-profit voluntary groups not affiliated with any government formed to provide services or to advocate a public policy; NGOs in the field of disinformation mainly focus on disclosing disinformation, like the markets-based system Fact-bar, used for ranking and organizing facts about our world29 or promoting media literacy. Unesco’s global media and information literacy week is an example,30 and can function both on a local and international level.
4. Measures in place • In December 2018 the European Commission created an Action Plan Against Disinformation31, mostly to address potential threats to the upcoming elections while strengthening the EU's democratic system. This action plan informed that there were measures which had already been taken and others which would be taken, such as the Code of Practise on Disinformation which was agreed upon on October 2018 by international social networks such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and other leading advertising platforms with the goal of addressing the spread of online disinformation. Scrutiny of advertisement placements, political advertisements’ transparency and integrity of accounts and services were some of the achievements obtained by mid 2019 to fight hate speech and disinformation accounts according to the report on the actions’ plan progress.32 • The EEAS (European External Action services) East Stratcom Task Force33 was created in 2015 to address Russia’s recurring disinformation campaign. In 2019 its budget doubled to help stop the promotion of extreme views and the polarization of debates. The task force does it by reporting on and analysing disinformation trends, explaining and exposing disinformation narratives and raising awareness of disinformation coming from the Russian State, Russian sources and spread in the Eastern neighbourhood media space. Furthermore, this force also established the project EUvsDisinfo in 2015 as a way to increase public awareness and understanding of the Kremlin’s disinformation operations.34 • In March 2019 the Rapid Alert System (RAS)35 was created to achieve better cooperation with international partners and online platforms with the goal of identifying and preventing the spread of the disinformation campaign.
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Communications Networks, Content and Technology. European Commission. Factbar. Ranking The World's Facts. Factbar. Ranking The World's Facts. Action Plan against Disinformation. European Commission. Action plan against disinformation. European Commission. Questions and Answers about the East StratCom Task Force. European Union External Action. EU vs DISINFORMATION. Rapid Alert System. EU vs DISINFORMATION.
33 CULT
DIGITAL NATIONAL SELECTION CONFERENCE OF EYP CZ 2020
• Projects such as the Horizon 202036 programme, the Social Observatory for Disinformation and Social Media Analysis (SOMA)37, The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)38 and the InVID Project39 have been or are being created as a support system for independent fact-checking and factually correct journalism. • As of April 2019, a regulation proposed by the European Commission is now binding and applicable in all Member States: European political parties trying to influence elections by misusing personal data can be fined up to 5% of their annual income. • COVID-19 has led to a parallel pandemic of disinformation which directly impacts lives around the world. The impacts of COVID-19 disinformation are far deadlier than disinformation regarding other subjects, such as politics and democracy. UNESCO’s response to the problem was to publish two separate policy briefs which offer critical insights into the fast-growing Fig. 2: Overview of the EU joint and coordinated action against disinformation. COVID-19-related disinfodemic which is impeding access to trustworthy sources and reliable information. The first policy brief40 addresses nine types of coronavirus-related disinformation and identifies categories of response around the world. On the second policy brief,41 different kinds of responses to the COVID-19-related disinformation are critically analysed in relation to their impact on the right to freedom of expression, access to information and privacy.
5. Questions • Should governments be given the power to control what can go through the media? • How do we limit the creation and spread of fake news? • What steps should be taken in order to prevent the shift of public opinion and elections being influenced due to disinformation? • What steps should be taken to promote media literacy amongst older generations? • What additional measures should be implemented in order to respond to the increasing dependence on technology and the vulnerability related thereto during the COVID-19 pandemic?
6. Links for further research • MYTH-BUSTING: DISINFORMATION • HOW DO YOU SPOT WHEN NEWS IS FAKE? • EU ACTION PLAN AGAINST DISINFORMATION (2018)
34 CULT
36 37 38 39 40 41
What is Horizon 2020? European Commission. SOMA website. Code of principles. International Fact-Checking Network. The InVid project. DISINFODEMIC: Deciphering COVID-19 disinformation. UNESCO. DISINFODEMIC: Dissecting responses to COVID-19 disinformation. UNESCO.