"[Article 17 EMFA] has particular problems: (...) the fact that this is something that will have to be assessed basically by online platforms based on very, very open criteria."
1 / 9
"It is important to take into account international standards (...) and in particular the way the right to freedom of expression has been defined by the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe."
2 / 9
"International standards do not necessarily protect specific categories of speakers but they instead tend to protect specific categories of speech, no matter who the speaker is. "
3 / 9
"Traditional media don't have a monopoly when it comes to reporting on matters of public interest."
4 / 9
"[Article 17] would exclude identical types of speech that are being disseminated by actors that are not media."
5 / 9
"The way to fix this article would be to (...) provide clear indications to platforms to avoid that (...) in certain cases, for example in election processes, speech is not excessively affected."
6 / 9
"[Assessing] the circumstances that would justify special protection is something that platforms cannot do on their own. Determining who can or who cannot receive certain special treatment must include all the stakeholders."
7 / 9
"The main risk is that Article 17 becomes a true media exemption, which would basically consolidate certain old, traditional media monopolies (...), which (...) the Media Freedom Act proclaims to try to avoid."
8 / 9
"The definition of media included in the Media Freedom Act is very limited for any purpose (...). It doesn't acknowledge other forms of reporting or journalism."
9 / 9