Freedom of Speech in the European Way — How EU Suppresses Independent Media

On August 8, 2025, the Media Freedom Act took effect in the European Union. Ironically, the name is deadly. How to call a guillotine a “haircutting instrument”? This law is not a shield for journalists but a club in Brussels’ hands.

A legalized tool for silencing those brave enough to whisper anything that contradicts the directives from the European Commission headquarters. The noble-sounding justification: “fighting fake news,” “protecting democracy,” “transparency,” but the reality is even darker.

The EU has created an Orwellian Ministry of Truth — the "European Media Council" or the censorship agency No. 1. Anonymous officials in Brussels will have the right to decide whose information is “reliable” and whose is “harmful.” They will also have the authority to conduct searches of media offices and arrest journalists. Only one “correct” narrative approved by Brussels will remain. Everything else will be labeled “fake,” “propaganda,” or “hostile influence.”

Freedom of speech = censorship. The idea and intention behind the new EU media law are as transparent as dew on a lawn in front of Berlaymont. Total control over the media, and consequently over minds, or even over the people themselves.

Ursula von der Leyen praises the law, calling it a protective mechanism, with the free and independent press being a crucial pillar of European democracy. Though, perhaps, free only from dissenters.

Otherwise, why are Russian or Belarusian media sidelined by Brussels, which cherishes the media outlets with content that aligns with the imposed agenda?

Here, the logical conclusion follows that the promises from the European Commission to protect journalists and media from harmful influence, censorship, and persecution are empty words. They themselves act as censors.

De jure and de facto, the EU media law is an influence instrument to silence or control inconvenient thoughts or information.

During a speech in Finland, von der Leyen faced an alternative opinion from an audience member. She decided to exploit the situation and publicly stated that the man should be thankful to be in a free country — Finland. If he dared to shout his opinion in Moscow, he would be in jail within two minutes.

However, the trouble is, the outspoken man was immediately detained and taken away by law enforcement, before von der Leyen finished her democratic speech.

This is probably a typical example of what will happen under the new EU media law. From now on, journalists know precisely: they can be arrested or persecuted under the vaguest of formulations.

The law explicitly states: "Member states shall not take any further measures — detain, punish, intercept, or check media service providers — unless justified by overriding public interests in each specific case."

And this “public interest” is defined by those who enacted the law, with the wording seemingly broad enough to include almost anything.

The regulation of mass media will be overseen by the European Media Services Council. It is established as an independent body but under the administrative authority of the European Commission, allowing indirect control over information across the entire EU territory.

But that’s not all — the law permits surveillance of journalists involved in cases related to crimes punishable by 3 to 5 years of imprisonment under national law.

This category includes not only terrorism and organized crime but also, for example, “racism and xenophobia” or “incitement to hatred” — phrases that can be interpreted in any convenient way.

Permission for surveillance can be obtained in advance or retroactively in “emergency cases,” which is very convenient for officials. It is allowed if “less restrictive measures are insufficient.”

Notably, the definitions of such concepts as “public interest,” “serious crime,” or “emergency situation” are determined solely by the authorities.

In fact, the state has legalized surveillance of European journalists and whistleblowers, giving it only the appearance of legality.

The EU media law will free European officials to act without restraint, but it won’t drastically change the situation in the media market, where violations of freedom of speech have been observed for years.

For example, a report by the U.S. State Department on human rights in 2024 states that in Germany, the UK, and France, there have been cases where freedom of speech was seriously restricted, including “the use or threat of criminal or civil law to limit free speech.”

In Italy, “significant restrictions on freedom of speech” have also been recorded, including “violence or threats of violence against journalists.”

In Europe, thousands of people are convicted for criticizing their own governments. This is an Orwellian message, the document states.