The Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) sent a response to the Ministry of Culture and Media regarding the draft of the new Media Act, which was delivered to them on July 5. The CJA deemed the draft entirely unacceptable. The letter addressed to Minister of Culture and Media, Nina Obuljen Koržinek, is presented in its entirety below.

Dear Minister of Culture and Media, Ms. Obuljen Koržinek,

I am writing to inform you that the proposed draft of the Media Act which the Ministry of Culture and Media provided to the Croatian Journalists’ Association as a working version on July 5, 2023, is wholly unacceptable. Its adoption would significantly hinder media freedom and the position of journalists and journalism in Croatia. Regrettably, we note that the Croatian government’s proposal completely disregards the fact that the European Commission also recognizes journalism as a public good in its proposal for the European Media Freedom Act.

For the CJA, it is unacceptable that, 18 months after CJA submitted its suggestions for the existing Media Act, the Ministry offered us a document that was not discussed in the working group meeting, nor were there any consultations or agreements on the comprehensive Media Act. We received a text that neither embodies the core principles and concepts that empower press freedom nor upholds the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the media.

This text, which is also inconsistent in quality and elaboration, lacking clear implementation mechanisms and occasionally contradictory, raises several serious objections. In this letter, we wish to highlight the key issues it raises with the intention of its legalization.

• The CJA is particularly concerned about the tendency to legalize censorship through provisions concerning the publication of journalistic content, which grants publishers the right to arbitrarily and without any justification withhold the publication of journalistic content, disregarding the fundamental principles of journalistic profession. We interpret this provision as introduction of direct censorship and an unprecedented legal allowance for publishers to interfere with: 1) editorial independence and 2) journalistic freedom.

The proposed provision would violate journalistic freedoms even if it stated that instead of publishers, the editor is not obliged to publish a journalistic content without explanation. The Croatian government has gone even further by fundamentally altering the meanings of the words “editor” and “journalist,” and this change is made in the worst possible sense.

The existing rules regarding the duties and obligations of publishers, editors, and journalists, especially those relating to press freedoms, are defined in international and domestic documents of the journalistic profession, such as the Declaration of the International Federation of Journalists and the Code of Ethics of Croatian Journalists. These standards can be found in all editorial statutes of Croatian media, as well as in the (existing) national legislation. The role of the state is to legislate in a manner that guarantees freedom of speech with (justifiable) restrictions while being cautious not to interfere with the competencies of editors and journalists. This completely undermines the institution of media statutes, which govern the relationships between publishers and the editorial staff, the selection of chief editors through the voting of all journalists and editors, and the regulation of mutual relations – introduced by the state precisely to enable free journalism and incentivized with a reduced VAT rate for printed media.

According to universally accepted norms (embedded in professional regulations, editorial statutes, acts, etc.) that have been present since the existence of free journalism, there is a clear division between publishers, editors, and journalists. Simplified, the publisher sets the basic editorial orientation and the corresponding program based on the respect of ethical and professional norms of journalism. The chief editor independently creates the editorial policy and is accountable to the publisher for its implementation and realization. The journalist, on the other hand, performs journalistic work, respecting the rules of the journalistic profession. In this job description and responsibility framework, according to numerous editorial statutes, the editor has the right not to publish certain media content but also the obligation to explain to the journalist the reasons for such decision. In those rare cases when a justified explanation is required for such a drastic move, the journalist has other editorial mechanisms to question such decisions (e.g., editorial council).

By the new proposal, where the publisher is not obliged to publish journalistic content, the fundamental ethical and professional principles of journalism, which clearly distinguish the publisher from the editorial team, are invalidated. The government’s new proposal would not only allow the publisher to co-create the daily editorial policy – which would already be an unacceptable interference in editorial autonomy – but would also grant them the right to make editorial decisions without any regard for the chief editor and the editorial team.

In accordance with most editorial statutes in Croatia, editors are elected by the majority vote of all journalists, and journalists have the right to seek their removal if they violate the rules of journalistic profession and similar conditions. The proposed amendment that “publishers are not obligated to publish journalistic content” would mean that media owners become editors, without any influence from journalists.

The editorial board, which should act as an impermeable barrier between publishers and journalists in democratically organized societies, becomes redundant in this case. The most important professional documents that define internal editorial processes are negated and ignored, while the concept of editorial control is undermined. Journalists and their freedoms are left at the mercy of media owners, exposing democracy to their particular interests, which often have nothing to do with journalism.

What has been a long-standing acute problem in Croatian (and global) journalism – publishers influencing editors for political or private business reasons to censor the journalists they employ – is now being resolved by the Republic of Croatia by legalizing censorship.

This proposal is directly in conflict with a series of recommendations made by the European Union published at the end of 2022. The Proposal for the Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU “commercial and ownership influence on editorial content” is highlighted as one of the biggest threats to media pluralism in the Union member countries. The proposal is based on the following conclusions:

Point 15 states that “Member States have different approaches to protecting editorial independence, which is increasingly questionable throughout the Union. In several Member States, there is a growing interference in editorial decisions of media service providers. Such interference can be direct or indirect, involving the state or other actors, including public bodies, elected officials, state officials, and politicians, for example, to gain some political advantage. Shareholders and other private entities with stakes in media service providers can act in a way that exceeds what is necessary to balance business freedom and freedom of expression on one hand, and editorial freedom of expression and the right to information of users on the other, to achieve economic or other benefits.”

In point 20: To protect the integrity of the media, informative media companies should proactively promote editorial independence, especially by adopting internal protective measures. Media service providers should adopt proportionate measures to guarantee the editor’s freedom to make individual editorial decisions within their professional activity after owners and editors agree on the overall editorial policy. The goal of protecting editors from undue interference in their decisions on specific content within their daily work contributes to ensuring equal conditions in the internal market for media services and the quality of such services. This goal is also in line with the fundamental right to receive and disseminate information from Article 11 of the Charter of the European Union on fundamental rights.

In point 44: The assessment of protective measures for editorial independence should include an examination of possible risks of undue interference by a potential owner, management, or governing structure in individual editorial decisions of the acquired or merged entity. Existing or anticipated internal protective measures aimed at preserving the independence of individual editorial decisions in the involved media companies should also be taken into account.

Article 3 of the Regulation itself states: “Recipients of media services in the Union have the right to receive different news and content on current affairs, produced with respect for the editorial freedom of media service providers, for the benefit of public discourse.”

In Article 4, paragraph 2: “Member States shall respect the actual editorial freedom of media service providers. Member States, including their national regulatory authorities and bodies, shall not interfere, in any way, directly or indirectly, in the editorial policies and decisions of media service providers, nor attempt to influence them.”

In Article 6: “Without prejudice to national constitutional law in line with the Charter, media service providers providing news and content on current affairs shall take measures they consider appropriate to ensure the independence of individual editorial decisions. These measures shall aim, in particular, to guarantee the freedom of editors to make individual editorial decisions in the course of their professional activity.”

In conclusion, with this single sentence (stating that media service providers have the right to editorial interventions and removal of media content), the Republic of Croatia is not only attacking journalism but also the proposals, suggestions, and sub-legal acts of the European Union.

• Considering the above-mentioned problem, we find the obligation for journalists to disclose the source of information to their editors unacceptable. Furthermore, we are particularly concerned in light of the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia, Andrej Plenković, that “leaking information” will be criminally prosecuted.

According to the Code of Honor of Croatian journalists and universal journalistic ethical principles, journalists have the right not to disclose the source of information, but they are responsible for the information they publish. Journalists should not abuse the trust established with the source of information.

• The Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) finds problematic the provision that allows a journalist, if their publisher refuses to publish their journalistic contribution, to publish it elsewhere, as long as it does not contradict their obligations to the publisher.

This provision is based on selective grounds. Most journalists employed by media companies (especially those with full-time, permanent contracts) are bound by exclusivity agreements, meaning they cannot write for other media outlets. This practice primarily affects freelance journalists, exploiting their precarious and insecure position in the job market. Of particular concern is the lack of awareness of the malign influence of corporate advertisers and the political sector on the majority of media outlets. Their influence has permeated most of the major media corporations in Croatia. This means that publishers usually aim to censor and prohibit texts that could harm their profits. Given that the major pressures come from the same political and business individuals, a text banned in one media outlet is almost certain not to be published in another.

Moreover, the Republic of Croatia is effectively attempting to legalize a well-known maxim often used by corporate editors and owners: if you don’t want to work on a topic assigned by your boss, there’s always someone in the market who will. This proposal shifts journalistic ethics and freedom into the realm of market logic. The consequences of this proposal include:

1. Most texts/contributions from permanently employed journalists that displease publishers will never be published anywhere.
2. Permanently employed journalists will face censorship.
3. Freelance journalists will lose their freedom of expression.
4. Media outlets and their owners will have the opportunity to establish a chain of mass censorship in Croatian journalism.

• With regret, it is noted that the proposed model of establishing the Council for Media (the Council for Electronic Media would now be responsible for all media) suggests a selection process for council members that allows the ruling majority to have discretionary powers in proposing and confirming candidates in the Croatian Parliament. This jeopardizes the independence of the media regulator, which, under such a selection model, remains a political body.

It should be reminded that back in 2019, during the amendments to the Electronic Media Act, CJA proposed a transparent selection process for the Council for Electronic Media, which is applicable and relevant to the future Council for Media.

Historically, several professional journalists were part of each Council for Electronic Media since its establishment. If anyone can transform their knowledge of media practice into informed regulatory surveillance, it’s professional journalists.

Therefore, CJA requested that two council members be selected from the ranks of journalistic professionals, chosen by the Croatian Parliament based on CJA’s recommendation after conducting an appropriate public tender.

The proposal was as follows: The Council for Electronic Media should consist of six members and a president, with a seven-year mandate, and they cannot be re-elected. The Council should comprise individuals distinguished by their knowledge of media, journalism, media technology, media economy, sociology, media policy, or law.

The members of the Council are appointed and dismissed by the Croatian Parliament with a two-thirds majority vote of all members, and two people are delegated by the Croatian Journalists’ Association, following a prior public tender.

Unfortunately, our proposal was rejected back then.

• The proposed composition of the Council of Media Experts is unacceptable to the Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA). In this envisioned council with extensive powers (including allocation of support and tests of public value), private profit entities (major publishers of print and electronic media, private legal and media faculties) will dominate, taking four out of five seats, while journalists and media experts will be completely marginalized.

The role of journalists is grossly underestimated, reducing the journalistic profession to just one member in the proposed five-member council, which, as the proposal suggests, would be determined by representative journalist associations’ agreements. CJA cannot escape the impression that the Ministry of Culture and Media is reviving the idea of “mixing” truly exemplary representatives of the journalistic profession with ad hoc associations that not only fail to uphold the reputation and dignity of the journalistic profession but tarnish it in every possible way.

As the Council of Media Experts is expected to decide on the allocation of direct and indirect support to the media, such a council, populated by individuals chosen at the will of interested market actors, would be allocating public funds primarily to themselves, which is an unbelievable example of a conflict of interest.

• CJA strongly opposes the establishment of a register of journalists and photojournalists. It believes that this is an attempt to establish state control over professional journalists, who should remain independent from all centres of power.

The proposed law does not specify the purpose of this register: whether the state intends to license journalists, the criteria people need to meet to become professional journalists and photojournalists, and the fate of those working in journalism but not granted registration in the journalist registry. The criteria for obtaining the professional status of a journalist are described as “educational and professional qualitative and quantitative criteria.” What exactly do educational criteria mean? Does it imply that only those who have completed journalism studies can become professional journalists? It should be noted that some of the most prominent journalists in Croatia have not completed journalism studies. Who will determine the quality of someone’s work and decide if they are suitable for registration in the mentioned registry? This responsibility would be placed on the Council of Media Experts, where only one out of five members represents the journalistic profession.

We add to this the joint declaration of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media from 2004, explicitly stating that journalists should not be licensed or registered, and there should be no legal restrictions on who can be a journalist.

Furthermore, we are concerned about the obligations that the state would have in establishing such a registry. If compared to the registry of independent artists, will freelancers, for example, be subject to paying contributions, something that freelance journalists should receive but has been threatened due to recent changes in the healthcare system, endangering their right to basic health insurance?

It appears that the purpose of this registry is not clear.

By creating such a registry, the state is effectively entering the domain of arbitrating who is or is not a journalist, without a valid reason, and this task is handed over to individuals who, in the majority, will be selected by employers and private educational institutions.

• CJA is particularly concerned about the state’s attempt to interfere in media self-regulation through the imposition of the Council of Media Experts, which would decide on the content of media statutes – despite this being an act that should involve an agreement between publishers and media editorial teams.

We remind everyone that the Code of Ethics of Croatian journalists, harmonized with international professional principles, has existed for decades as the foundational document and guiding principle for the journalistic profession, while it seems that the Ministry, in preparing the draft act, completely ignores this fact. With this proposal, the Council would take on the role of a self-regulator imposing media statutes and thereby undermining the foundations of editorial and journalistic autonomy.

• We also express concern that the proposal completely avoids defining and sanctioning covert advertising and exempting journalists from producing advertising and promotional content. This is a burning issue that undermines the dignity of the journalistic profession and the credibility of the media.

We must also note that the text contains numerous errors in the discourse itself, and the provisions that were supposed to be transposed from European directives are poorly translated into Croatian. Parts of definitions are missing or have been lost in translation. For example, in Article 1.11, the term “commercial communication” – almost unknown and rarely used in the Croatian media environment – is likely mistakenly reduced to self-promotion. It is, in fact, a term better known as “advertising”. Furthermore, some definitions are circular, stock, or simply do not correspond to the terminology used in our media environment, potentially causing chaos in judicial practice. Despite the introduction of the term “commercial communication,” the term “advertising” is still used, implying that “commercial communication” is self-promotion, and advertising is a commercial advertisement. This implies that the same legal provisions would not apply to “commercial communication” and “advertising.” Even this language chaos in a law suggests that it was drafted unprofessionally, without consulting lawyers and experts in administrative and media discourse.

• With regret, CJA concludes that with this proposed law, the Republic of Croatia has abandoned its obligation to support the establishment of new media, especially local and non-profit media, thereby giving up on promoting media pluralism and diversity.
• CJA finds the provision stating that “undermining the public’s trust in the role of courts in a democratic society is not allowed” highly problematic.
• Regarding the support and the Fund for promoting media pluralism, the proposer has not provided sufficient information, although it involves the distribution of public funds that should ensure fair public funding for the media, free from conflicts of interest and political pressure.

Considering the previously mentioned issue of abandoning support for small, non-profit, and local media, it gives the impression that the state is leaving the field of direct and indirect subsidization solely to non-public particular interests, which will inevitably lead to conflicts of interest.

While providing support to certain commercial media, such as financial subsidies for product delivery or subscriptions for print and web versions, the state has not explained the societal benefits or imposed any obligations for such publishers.

It raises the question of why a distinction is made between subscription-based electronic publications that are web extensions of daily newspapers and those that are not (e.g., Srednja.hr and Telegram). This legislative approach introduces unacceptable and dangerous disparities and divisions among Croatian media, directly affecting their economic position in the media market.

In the chapter “Criteria for awarding direct support for subscriptions to non-electronic publications,” it states that the publication must have its version in general information print media that partly overlaps in its editorial content. This discriminates against portals that do not have a print version and, in a way, represents lex specialis that applies only to a certain portion of the media, excluding others entirely.

It remains unclear who will exactly determine the public interest for which indirect support would be allocated, not to mention that the application process seems overly expedited.

Furthermore, the proposal includes a provision that requires “state administration bodies, agencies, and public institutions established by the Republic of Croatia, as well as legal entities primarily owned by the Republic of Croatia, to spend at least 20% of their annual amount designated for promotion or advertising of their services or activities on advertising in daily and weekly general information print media”. Meanwhile, according to the Law on Electronic Media, local and regional radio and television stations, as well as other portals, are required to spend at least 15% of their annual amount on promotion or advertising. The reasons for this discrepancy are not explained.

It is also unclear to whom the proposed tax on internet advertising would apply – digital service providers (Google, Facebook) or electronic publications? If it applies to the latter, it will directly impact online media.

• CJA strongly rejects the introduction of additional state control over professional associations. The provisions that grant the Agency for Media the authority to maintain a register of these associations, determine their representativeness, prescribe the structure of membership, assess the “appropriateness” of their actions and plans, and especially the number and list of members, are unacceptable to CJA.

The state either intends to introduce a chamber model for professional associations or wants to interfere with the free association of citizens. From this, we infer the state’s intention to put independent professional associations under its control.

All of the above indicates that the government’s proposal represents an unprecedented state interference in press freedom, disrupts the already delicate division between publishers, editors, and journalists, attempts to interfere with self-regulation and the free association of professional journalists, and arbitrarily grants the right to engage in journalism professionally. It is a direct state attack on the positive rules that have defined journalism in democratic states for over a hundred years.

Indirectly, this proposal endangers all democratic processes in society, where journalism is considered an important tool for correcting state and private power. All this is done without a well-thought-out media policy, which is the only foundation on which media legislation can be built.

Therefore, the Croatian Journalists’ Association requests a response from the Ministry of Culture and Media as soon as possible, no later than August 2, 2023. After that, we will inform you about the next steps.

Respectfully,

Hrvoje Zovko, President of Croatian Journalists’ Association

Report says online abuse is becoming so ‘normalised’ that journalists often do not report it – or have any faith in institutional protection.

Online threats against journalists are more intense and common than physical ones, but most newsrooms have not set up safety protocols to help them respond to these attacks, while laws do not provide efficient protection, BIRN and IJAS’s new report reveals.

Working in an environment that is becoming primarily digital has left journalists and media more exposed to online to attacks, insults and threats, but many newsrooms have not established mechanisms to deal with such cases and legislation does not provide adequate protection either.

These are some of the findings from the latest report, “Journalists’ Safety in the Digital Environment”, which BIRN Serbia and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia, IJAS, published on July 18.

Online attacks and threats impact journalists’ mental health and private lives and affect relations in the newsrooms and commitment to professional standards. Online abuse is typically “normalised” and considered as part of the job.

“The most striking finding is that hate speech, threats, insults, intimidation, pressure and other forms of digital violence against journalists are so widespread in Serbia that journalists believe that it has become a daily ‘normal’ environment in which they work and that it is the price they pay for their work.

“When faced with digital threats and insults, they generally do not report them because they know that, at the institutional level of protection, things are rarely undertaken and resolved,” says Aleksandra Krstic, associate professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Belgrade, one of the report’s authors.

Endangerment of journalists’ safety may lead to self-censorship and journalists may even abandon stories of public interest. which then lowers the quality of information the public receives and puts at risk media independence and freedom of speech, the report notes.

The report says many journalists rarely report insults and threats, warning that “the lack of trust that journalists have in the institutional protection system, the competent prosecutor’s office or the courts, is alarming”.

Marija Babic, lawyer at IJAS and another author of the report, says it is necessary to harmonise laws with developments in the digital space in order to prosecute attacks.

“Competent authorities should process attacks and threats to journalists as quickly as possible. It is also very important that such attacks are condemned by high-ranking state officials, who should stop pressuring and targeting journalists and the media as this is only making them [journalists and media] targets of very serious attacks,” says Babic.

The report also notes the lack of professional solidarity with attacked journalists and the fact that journalists and editors mainly turn to the public – which is the only thing they still trust – hoping that publicising attacks and threats will save them from potential attackers.

“All these findings should be read in a general, social context that is not conducive to the development of free and independent media. Threats and pressures, intense public campaigns led by representatives of the highest state authorities, a culture of impunity and weak institutions lead to a situation where journalists and the media are legitimate ‘targets’.

“Apart from the need to strengthen the capacities of the newsrooms themselves, we should insist on more effective protection mechanisms through amendments to the laws and a stronger response from institutions,” says Tanja Maksic, program manager and researcher at BIRN and one of the authors of the report.

The full report in Serbian and English is available here.

The Coalition for Media Freedom strongly condemns the threats received by the Program Director of theIndependent Journalists’ Association of Vojvodina (NDNV), Dinko Gruhonjic, from the President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik. According to the already seen and tried-and-tested matrix, after Dodik’s qualifications, threats began to arrive on social networks.

Milorad Dodik accused Gruhonjic of “hating Serbs and that this is proof of the worst chauvinism, which serves the purpose of destroying democratic and civic values.”

The reason for the attacks on Gruhonjic was his guest appearance on Television N1, where he spoke, among other things, about the adjudicated cases in Srebrenica.

Soon after the guest appearance, the program director of NDNV started receiving threats via social networks, and Dodik’s accusations were also used to attack TV N1 by demanding a ban on its operation on the territory of the RS.

The Coalition points out to Dodik, but also to all other politicians and government representatives, that freedom of speech, especially when it comes to telling the truth, plays a key role in maintaining and strengthening a democratic society.

The Coalition for Media Freedom believes that this re-targeting of Gruhonjic is dangerous because what was said comes from a public official, and that it is a model of behavior towards journalists that has proven to be a very effective means of pressuring and sending messages to others to launch threats and attacks.

This kind of atmosphere and negative attitude towards journalists and the media is aimed primarily at leaving an impression on citizens, who then, most often on social networks, insult and harass journalists, send threats and further incite hatred.

Dodik, as well as other politicians who have distinguished themselves with hate speech in recent days, must understand the importance of freedom of speech, because otherwise we are going in a direction that sends the message of what awaits you if you say what you think, and leads to the collapse of basic values in society. Media freedom is actually a measure of society’s freedom.

In Belgrade,

19.07.2023

The Coalition for Media Freedom consists of the Association of Media, the Association of Online Media (AOM), the Independent Association of Journalists of Vojvodina (NDNV), the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS), the Business Association of Local and Independent Media “Local Press” and the Slavko Curuvija Foundation.

The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) welcomes the findings by the Journalists’ Union of Turkey (TGS), which points to the challenges media professionals in the country have to face due to a troubling landscape of political pressure, censorship, mobbing and inadequate working conditions. The study of the titled “Journalism in Turkey: Perception and Profile”, provides insights into the current state of the profession.

Political Pressure and Financial Struggles

Over 50 per cent of the surveyed journalists identified political pressure as the major obstacle hindering their journalistic practice. Financial sustainability, working conditions, and employer influence were also highlighted as significant challenges. Additionally, difficulties in professional organization and the diminishing societal reputation of journalism were reported as additional hurdles.

Censorship and Self-Censorship

The survey disclosed that 42.8 per cent of journalists had experienced censorship in various forms, including non-publication, alteration, or removal of news content. Notably, female journalists and those under the age of 35 encounter a higher incidence of censorship. Political motivations and employer relationships were identified as primary drivers of these acts of censorship. Furthermore, 25.3 per cent of journalists admitted to frequently or consistently practising self-censorship, while 36.9 per cent claimed they never engaged in self-censorship.

Career Uncertainty

Alarmingly, one in four journalists expressed contemplating a career change due to the challenges they face. This concerning finding reflects the disheartening state of the journalism profession in Turkey.

Obstacles in News-Gathering

Journalists revealed several obstacles encountered during the news-gathering process, including legal actions, restricted access to news sources, physical assaults, and seizure of digital materials. Female journalists faced a higher incidence of these obstacles compared to their male counterparts.

Mobbing in the Workplace

According to the survey, 36.2 per cent of journalists reported experiencing instances of workplace mobbing at least once during their careers. Female journalists, younger professionals, individuals with higher education degrees, and those working in metropolitan areas reported higher rates of workplace mobbing.

Work-Life Balance and Burnout

Striking a work-life balance and the ability to separate personal and professional lives emerged as significant challenges for journalists. Limited time for professional development and the prevalence of burnout syndrome were also identified as prominent concerns.

Low Wages and Financial Constraints

The study revealed that most journalists in Turkey receive low salaries, work more than 45 hours per week, and are not entitled to annual leave. Additionally, a concerning 59.1 per cent of journalists expressed their inability to allocate financial resources for personal growth, with this figure rising to 70.6 per cent among female journalists.

Kuleli: No democracy without quality journalism

Mustafa Kuleli, the vice chair of the EFJ said that even if political repression ends, good journalism cannot be practised in Turkey unless journalists work under better conditions:

“We have a problem that concerns all citizens: Without quality journalism, there can be no democracy, and without democracy, the country cannot thrive. In order to improve the quality of journalism, we must first improve the quality of life for journalists. This can be achieved through collective efforts with unions. Therefore, I call upon citizens to support journalism by paying for news, encourage journalists to come together, urge employers to abandon their anti-union stance, and call on the government to put an end to its pressure on the media.”

Journalists from the Birač region stood up for freedom of speech today. They were joined by representatives of the civil sector. Symbolically, at five to 12, they expressed their displeasure against the Proposal to amend the Criminal Code of the Republic of Srpska, which stifles freedom of speech. The criminalization of public speech concerns all citizens of the RS, not just journalists, the protest said.

And journalists are the ones who, for who knows how many times, the conscience of the public and who, standing up in their defense, knowing what awaits them, stood up in defense of all citizens who think differently.

We will support the protests in Banja Luka tomorrow and tell the public about the citizens that journalists are with the common man this time, said retired journalist Zorana Petković.

Exasperated representatives of the non-governmental sector told, among other things, the RS Government.

They lack that famous political commissar, they lack a Ministry that they had before the censorship war. My dear brother, I can make it fine, even though we don’t have a sea coast, I can make a bare island somewhere. It’s no problem. That someone could end up in prison because of a spoken word is unthinkable, said Siniša Purtić, an eco-activist from Vlasenice.

Dragisav Mijanović, President of the Zvornik City Organization of war disabled veterans, said that this law destroys and stifles free speech.

It has to be withdrawn. We will see how much they will listen, Mijanović said. This is the Law on the Protection of Criminals from Criticism, citizens said harshly.

What is happening is horrendous. It is already known that the judiciary and the prosecution are there to support thievery and crime. They want to make it official, it seems. I think that’s the last thing that can happen to us. That we are definitely becoming slaves, said citizen Dragan Filipović.

On Tuesday, nine MPs from the Birač region will vote in the RS National Assembly. From Zvornik, they asked the MPs to stand by the citizens of the RS and not support the proposed changes to the Criminal Code of the RS.

Source: BN 

After the confession of the accused, the Municipal Court in Sarajevo sentenced Nefail Čehić to a suspended sentence of three months in prison for threatening the journalists of the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIRN BiH), the Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office of Sarajevo Canton announced.

According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the prison sentence for the criminal offense of endangering security will not be carried out if the convicted person does not commit a new criminal offense within one year of the judgment becoming final.

Čehić was charged that on August 7, 2020, he sent “serious threats to the life and body of BIRN BiH employees” on their Facebook profile, Detektor, from his Facebook profile, the Prosecutor’s Office reminds.

According to BIRN BiH, Čehić sent the message after BIRN BiH published the analysis and the 116th episode of “TV Justice” magazine entitled “Can former ISIL fighters in BiH be tried for war crimes”. This show, as they add, talks about the possibility that returnees from the battlefield in Syria, in addition to terrorism, will be tried for war crimes, which is the practice of some European countries, which increases the penalties for joining the terrorist organization of the so-called Islamic State.

Source: Media Center Online