ANDREI RICHTER,DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE ON FREEDOM OF THE MEDIA, OSCE

11 MARCH 2015

Legal Attempts to Restrict Propaganda Broadcasts Related to Crisis in and

around Ukraine, 2014-15

Trends in the case law on propaganda

1) Decisions generally based on national law;2) Out of the international documents it was

the ECTT and the AVMSD that were most often invoked;

3) Some of the decisions of independent regulators were instigated by state security agencies;

4) Context of a actual threat of aggression was a major factor in decisions;

5) No criminal charges brought against individual journalists or editors.

Arguments of decisionsLegal

arguments/Country

Latvia Lithuania

Moldova Ukraine UK

War propaganda

Yes Yes No No No

Hate speech Yes Yes No Yes No

National security

Yes No No Yes No

Territorial integrity

Yes No No Yes No

Misinformation/No impartiality

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

OSCE RFOM Recommendations to Govts

Stop manipulating media; stop information and psychological wars.

Ensure media plurality and free media as an antidote to propaganda.

Refrain from introducing new restrictions; existing laws can deal with extreme propaganda.

Invest in media literacy for citizens to make informed choices.

Reform state media into genuine public service broadcasting.

International reasons for national failures

1. unwillingness of many states to restrict their own aggressive narratives in this context,

2. their refusal to bring this issue to international bodies, 3. fear of some governments to unacceptably endanger

free expression by putting this issue on international agenda,

4. and resulting inability of international bodies to provide clear guidelines.