Freedom of expression and freedom of the media

Participants agreed that the general picture concerning freedom of expression in Denmark was good, but they also mentioned several examples referring to serious challenges. As in the previous sessions, they considered that public debate was more tense than before, especially on line. Persons would fear reprisals for speaking about certain subjects in a number of areas. For example, academic freedom was affected by some students' reactions that considered some teachings as offensive.

Although the blasphemy law was repealed in 2017, the impact of the "caricature case" was still vivid and led to both self-censorship and polarisation of online discourses. On the other hand, a participant mentioned that Danish legislation treated differently public speeches according to whether they were made in a religious context. Another participant summarised the challenge as managing to protect at the same time freedom of expression and the rights of minorities.
The Danish Counter-Terrorism legislation was also discussed in this session. It was found problematic that it could facilitate the urgent blocking of websites and infringe upon journalists' rights to protect their sources. More generally, a participant explained that broadly-worded provisions could lead to imbalanced implementation and that this area of law should be reassessed against fundamental rights to strike a better balance concerning the proportionality, efficiency and necessity aspects of restrictions.

Another participant pointed out that public action to tackle disinformation could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Reference was made to a recent extension of the legislation on espionage to cover assistance to influence operations by foreign powers. Too vague a definition of such acts was seen as risky for freedom of expression. The Danish authorities explained that they were taking very seriously the issue of deliberate disinformation, while differencing it from involuntary misinformation. An inter-governmental task force tracked false narrative in order to detect state actors' spread of disinformation towards Denmark and potentially counter these false narratives. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the inter-governmental task force had a particular focus on screening, whether foreign states used the crisis as an opportunity to launch disinformation campaigns directed at Denmark. The Danish authorities did not see clear evidence of such state directed campaigns against Denmark.

A participant considered that whistle-blowers could be more protected in the public and business sectors. The more general question of the right of public servants to use their freedom of expression to criticise their employer was mentioned, with a reference to the recent case of public railway employees being warned for having publicly criticised their working conditions. The Danish authorities stated that they were in the process of implementing the EU Directive on whistle-blowing, with a law foreseen to be discussed in Parliament in Spring 2021. All ministries were already ordered to establish whistle-blowing channels within their structures.
Participants considered that Denmark had a robust framework protecting media freedoms, with a minimal interference by the State. There was at least one person responsible for content (editor or journalist) in each media, which eased claims in Courts and before the Press Council. Although the situation was not considered as problematic, a trend towards the concentration of media ownership, especially at local level, was mentioned as worth being monitored. Although it was considered that the authorities did not seek to use the COVID-19 situation to restrict or influence media, it was noted that the format of the exchanges between journalists and government representatives could be more open in that context.

Participants referred to public funding to media as an important support to quality journalism and to the plurality of media, in particular of local and smaller ones whose existence depended on them. The Danish authorities confirmed that media pluralism and independence were a priority and that they acted to support robust public service media and private sectors in the written press as in the digital one, and that they intended to focus their aid even more on regional media.
Many participants considered that Article 24 of the Freedom of Information Act was problematic because its prevented access to documents in the area of government work. On this specific point, the Danish authorities expressed their views that the provision was actually striking a balance between the public interest need for transparency and the necessity for a government to be able to protect its reflection on important issues. Pointing to the fact that the act had been backed by a wide political spectrum, they also referred to recent discussions on adjustments, which did not however reach a compromise.