Without the inclusion of a rule on non-interference in the DSA, it would be the first time ever that a legislator passes into law that press freedom is no longer determined by the law, constitutional protections, or by courts of justice, but by the gatekeeping platforms, according to terms and conditions which they themselves determine and implement without any discussion, due process or redress.
It is important to highlight that media organisations are not asking for a blanket protection.
We believe that several safeguards for the non-interference provision are appropriate. The problem we face as democratic societies is that disinformation, harmful and illegal content often attracts the most attention on gatekeeping platforms earning more money for the platforms than press publishers’ content.
Publishers and press publications are already subject to national laws enforceable in court, and comply with codes of ethics. Thus, legislators should be targeting activities not currently enforced, e.g. disinformation and illegal activities online. The limits of press freedom and freedom of expression should continue to be determined only by constitutions and national laws of Member States. Allowing global online platforms to take down any lawful media content not only violates press freedom but goes against the notion in the DSA that large platforms must assess systemic risks and institute mitigation measures.
Read below the full statement with argumentation and some frequently asked questions.