Freedom of expression and media freedom

Whilst participants considered Belgium to be a very positive example in terms of freedom of expression, they were concerned about the future economic perspectives for the media sector. Given the structural changes in recent years, including the sharp decline of printed media, it was deemed almost impossible to maintain a profitable business model in the near future. Readership and advertising remained the core economic sources for media, and public funding only represented 5% of resources. However, a participant predicted that without any progress, the sector would soon have to be mainly subsidised by the State. Participants explained that public authorities had provided more funds to public broadcasting services, as a way to fight against fake news. However, the growing role of public broadcasters was criticised for destroying the market of daily newspapers, harming pluralism and diversity and undermining press freedom. Participants also feared that the staff reductions in the media sector would result in a dramatic impoverishment in terms of quality of information, because smaller teams would have to fact-check an increasing number of news and content. The Belgian authorities stated that they had begun taking measures to fight fake news and support the media sector financially. Participants reported that new developments were ongoing in relation to access to information, at both federal and Flemish level. Two acts regulated the access to information at the federal level and one of them was undergoing amendment. Despite some positive elements, such as the proactive communication from the government,an improvement on the existing exceptions to access to information and the elaboration of the scope of application of the law on other administrative instances, other aspects were raised. Participants explained that the text would authorise two more exceptions, namely the possibilities to conceal information on procedures involving the government and to protect internal communications between authorities, with the both exceptions exception already introduced at Flemish level. As regards the conditions of journalists, participants considered that strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) cases, online intimidation and physical abuse during demonstrations remained concerning and were on the rise. They indicated that hate speech had grown considerably, especially against women professionals and journalists sometimes did not comment on certain topics on social media to avoid harassment. In this regard, participants welcomed the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and appreciated that defamation and slander would no longer be punished with prison sentences. They also welcomed the government's commitment to increase penalties for assault, and its support for the EU initiative on SLAPPs, but feared the potential watering down of the proposal during negotiations. The Belgian authorities stated that a new criminal code expanding protection for journalists and abolishing prison sentences for slander was being drafted. Authorities supported a swift transposition of the DSA and added that they would amend national law on SLAPPs based on the outcome of the EU directive. Participants also demanded solutions to improve the situation of freelance journalists (around 25% of the whole sector), regretting that this category was not covered by collective bargaining agreements like employed professionals, and explaining that the conditions of these journalists had worsened due to changes in the fiscality system and the recent health and cost-of-living crises. To support freedom of the press, participants stressed the need to continue distinguishing between real journalism ruled by ethical codes, from fake news and advertising disguised as journalism, and advocated self-regulation through press councils, as opposed to State and EU regulation. For this reason, reservations on the EU Media Freedom Act (MFA) initiative were also raised, as participants feared that a new regulatory body, set up by the government, would be involved in journalistic content and thus undermine press freedom.