2023-10-27 18:03:00
An unacceptable interpretation of the law for Martine Simonis, national secretary of the AGJPB (General Association of Professional Journalists of Belgium). “It’s completely shocking. This decision is contrary to all constitutional provisions in Belgium, but also to consistent case law from the Court of Cassation on the ban on censorship. I do not understand how a judge can twist the legal framework to this extent to give reason to prior control of information,” she denounces.
Can Conner Rousseau survive politically following his drunken racist remarks? Bart De Wever’s silence is not insignificant
DPG Media will appeal
Without having been able to consult the text of the judgment in full, media law professor François Jongen prefers to be cautious. It still qualifies the interpretation of the journalists’ association. “Article 25 of the Constitution which applies to the written press and writings on the Internet says that censorship can never be established. But there is a controversy, as is often the case among jurists, between those who consider that this provision prevents any prior intervention in the exercise of freedom of expression and those who consider that it only prevents censorship in the sense institutional of the term,” he explains. And in the present case, according to the UCLouvain professor, there would be no reason to speak of institutional censorship, since censorship is not established on a large scale by public authorities.
“Similarly, paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights explicitly says that there may be conditions, restrictions in the exercise of freedom of expression, in particular to protect the rights and reputation of people,” explains François Jongen. Following the analysis of an abusive interpretation of these restrictions, DPG Media announced its intention to appeal the decision. If the Court of Appeal does not agree with him, there will remain the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Cassation, then of a judgment at European level.
A climate of distrust
This decision taken in Dendermonde comes in a more generally unfavorable Belgian situation for journalists. “The whole notion of press freedom is being called into question at the moment,” analyzes Benoît Grevisse, professor of ethics at the Louvain School of Journalism. The current context is a very libertarian approach to press freedom, supported by the rise of platforms like X (formerly Twitter). In this judgment, we have a radical limitation of journalistic expression, which is nevertheless a framed and measured professional expression, in a context where, on the contrary, on social networks, everything and anything is done without being frame.”
Could we fear an increase in proceedings by politicians once morest the media following this judicial decision? In any case, this is the fear of many actors in the journalistic sector. “As soon as there are possibilities of strengthening control of the press, we regularly see one or the other parliamentarian come up with ideas, whether on the secrecy of sources or to be able to pursue journalists on the basis of of the violation of the secrecy of the investigation”, assures Benoît Grevisse. Martine Simonis goes in the same direction. “This decision opens a door. It might give some ideas. In the political world, there are personalities who no longer hesitate to question journalistic work. This is what we normally see in regimes that are not democratic,” she worries.
The general secretary of the AGJPB concludes by recalling a Belgian principle. “Our freedom of the press is a regime that operates ex post facto. The convictions must therefore be following publication, not before.”
1698436911
#Press #freedom #danger #Belgium #judgment #Conner #Rousseau #case #shocking
