Pollypaprika

Am I right in saying that the new media law has now been revoked/changed for the better?

many thanks

Rural Hungary

They voted on Monday to "water it down", it's still not ideal and being monitored by the EU.

Stomalomalus

I thought they neither "revoked" nor "watered down" the media law, but simply changed some small wording errors.

Also, I believe there was nothing wrong with the media law at all, and the EU's decisions demonstrate this. The media was kicking up a fuss, but it was reporting rubbish.

Also, did no-one else think that the media attention from the west on Hungary, Fidesz and Orban was a bit subjective? Most of what I read was incredibly biased!

stromnessdundee

Umm. I must be very biased towards a "Western" point of view but certain aspects of the Media Law are very worrying. The very hefty fines alone for what seem to be very arbitrary offences will be enough to ensure that most media concerns will employ self censorship. The fact that the arbiters of offences, the media authority are now in place for 9 years will ensure that a Fidesz slant will continue even if (and I doubt it the way the new constitution is panning out) they lose power. I am very concerned with the way things are moving here. I will be here for another year and a half and if things continue in the same way I will be very happy to leave. Sorry for the gloom but I just cannot help it.

Rural Hungary

I believed the amendments narrowed the scope of the law so it no longer covers Internet sites or blogs. Further, it also limits potential action against foreign media reporting from Hungary and registration with the authorities will no longer be a prerequisite for media operations. Finally, a ban on offensive content has also been softened.

In my opinion that is more than correcting a few words errors

tomasc

You think so, Stomalomalus? Especially as most of the criticism came before there was even english language version of the law... How many actually read the law before giving opinions or checked what the EU media directives actually say about media regulation?

The law is actually pretty much in line with EU directive http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/tvwf/index_en.htm of media regulation, which actually means that all european countries have to regulate not only techically but also contentwise media. In some countries printed press is self regulating but broadcasting is very much regulated the same way as now will be in Hungary.

For example, out of printed press, Ofcom has more or less exactly same authority than hungarian regulator, including imposing fines in case there is content violation. The hungarian regulator however is chosen by parlament instead of government (like in UK) so arguably this is more democratic. It is very exceptional that hungarian parlament has one dominating party, very much in contrast with lot of other countries in EU (- including UK where almost always one party can nominate all members)

No fines needs to be paid if the media is disputing it and turns to court. My understanding that in UK you have to pay it anyhow, even if you would disagree.

I pretty much feel that most people have very little understanding what 1. the EU regulations say about media laws 2. what the hungarian law actually says.

Is this perfect law, most likely not. Is this danger to free press, i doubt. Would i rather see self regulating press like in UK or Scandinavia, yes, if the country has long history of free and democratic society. I found it ironical that e.g MSZP here is talking about threat to democracy, when its previous charman ((Ildiko Lendvai) was real life cencor and propaganda chief for totalitarian repressive system who used to shoot people who wanted to leave hungary, it two previous PM's were actively working for communist regime, one as senior member of secret police... Real defendersof free society...

tomasc

And indeed scope has been narrowed down significantly, and applies only media that is done "professionally" with edited content, not private blogs etc. And of course the reason they tried to target those blogs originally was try to stop ultranationalist, fasist propaganda like kuruc.hu. In most contries that would actually qualify for hate speech...

My personal impression is that the law was written with good intent, it was not meant to silence political enemies (usual ones) but was done to stop hate speech, and nazi propaganda while trying to impose kind of professional standards for media (e.g. that news and political columns should be easily distingushed which is not really case always here). Might have been naive and silly, that is true. And as we can see, definitely did not silence any criticsm of the government, on the contrary....

Stomalomalus

I got confused about the rest of your post until I realised you kind of agreed with my viewpoint, and you just started with me... But I want to comment here.

The English press commented upon the law, and indeed, the rest of Europe did too, before it was even released in Hungarian, never mind English! Which is more fuel to the fire that it was just the media protecting it's own interests.

To stromnessdundee, is it not simply the fact that there needed to be radical changes, and that the new government wanted to make sure that these changes happened? Having such a majority is a really good thing for an elected government, as it allows them to process their mandate - the people voted for this, they are being allowed to do what the public voted for, something we never have in the UK.

Comparing the situations in the UK and Hungary, I'm very glad that I am returning to Hungary and not the UK.

Rural Hungary

It is indeed difficult, I for one would support any law that targeted the blogs/sites supporting fascism in Hungary, also those promoting the illegal MG organisation. However, difficulties then arise with regards to freedom of speech and defining lines which do not impact, intentionally or otherwise, on legitimate criticism.

That said, politics is not "my thing" so I shall watch, with interest, from the sidelines

tomasc

Stomalomalus, sorry, tried to be funny... indeed i agreed with you.

I think most people missed the fact that it was indeed most likely done with good intentions, especially targeting groups that are promoting hate, fasism and MG philosophy, the reason why they tried to impose the law to apply for foreign blogs was because especially kuruc has been moving to US to avoid any legal issues in hungary. Any sensible person would like them to shut up, although whether it is good or not to make it really illegal is another matter. I would love to believe that the more these people are promoting themselves, more likely people are going to see that they are idiots, however, i am a bit concerned that this might not be the case. Unfortunately.

fidobsa

Yes, we should have nothing to fear from freedom of speech. Most ordinary people won't be convinced by those with extreme views.

stromnessdundee

I must be very much mistaken and Orban has everyone's best interests at heart. As for the Media Law being introduced to curtail the revolting proselytizing of the ultra fascists-
When the Roma population of Gyöngyöspata were being terrorised by such thugs for almost a month and nothing was done about it are we really expected to believe this?
I am going to step out of this now- not sure I should be ranting about politics here.

Rural Hungary

Rant away

Apart from Roma issues, I don't take much notice of politics and read briefly on this when Polgardi asked.

It is interesting to hear from different perspectives as to what the law actually entailed and the perceived reasons behind it.

Must agree with Stromness in so much that more could be done to halt the rise in fascism than attempting to ban blogs. Perhaps begin by acting against the ongoing public gatherings of the outlawed MG, stopping them from taking over villages and acting as self appointed vigilantes? What I can not understand is how these people manage to circumvent said law simply by ensuring they all wear different ensembles of the uniform???

For example - doesn't this constitute fascist propaganda, not to mention intimidation and inciting hatred?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvIvtwgm6w

Stomalomalus

Yet, this is still a new government, it may simply be that they had a selection of laws to pass, and the media law was important to get through, or it was easier to push through. Some other laws, which would result in the break up of gangs or whatever, would require public consultation, surely, and would take longer.

Let them take their baby steps.

As for the media law curtailing freedom of speech, IT IS NOT! It is merely bringing Hungarian media law into line with the rest of the EU, the fuss was all caused by the Hungarian media BEFORE the law was even released!

tomasc

It should be remembered that neither Jobbik or Magyar Garda even existed before the previous "democratic" socialist government, they were counter reaction to especially Gyurcsany and his total lack of responsibility which lead to the infamous street fights in 2006.

Also Jobbik is major enemy to Fidesz as the only risk really that Fidesz has is about Jobbik, and i sincerely believe that it is no interest whatsoever to Orban to encourage people to support them. He does not have to worry about MSZP as they do the damage themselves.

In terms of freedom of speech it is basically fair question should be even restrict people's freedom or not, EU directives include restriction on hate speech, which on the contrary does not exist in USA and that is the reason that most ultra nationalist websites are actually located there.

What is certainly entertaining that at the same time LMP attacks government in implementing media content control (exactly as EU directive requires) while demanding more control on freedom of speech of facists...