- Europe
- Médias
Interview - Pierre Gentillet : EU Media Regulators Reining In Free Speech
In this interview, lawyer Pierre Gentillet discusses his latest study on EU media regulation and the creation of a new supranational body guiding national regulators. A key insight into how Brussels is tightening control—at the expense of free speech and pluralism.
On the occasion of the July 2 conference, the Patriots for Europe Foundation publishes a new study on the evolving landscape of media regulation in Europe. While freedom of expression is increasingly constrained by national regulatory authorities, a new threshold has been crossed: the establishment by Brussels of the European Board for Media Services (EBMS), tasked with harmonizing national decisions according to standards defined by the Union. In this exclusive interview, Pierre Gentillet, author of the study, outlines the consequences of this silent recentralization of media oversight and warns against a technocratic drift that could seriously undermine democratic pluralism across Europe.
National Regulators Weakened by an Ideological Control Logic
The first part of the study presents a comparative overview of several EU member states: Germany, Belgium, Italy, Poland, and France. Each country has its own institutional model, often shaped by its history. But all face a similar dilemma: how to guarantee pluralism without falling into ideological control.
In Germany, media regulation is managed by the Länder, but public broadcasters are frequently accused of excluding conservative or patriotic viewpoints. In French-speaking Belgium, RTBF openly applies a “cordon sanitaire” against certain political parties, contradicting the principle of pluralism. By contrast, Italy and Poland assume the political nature of their regulators, making the democratic power balance more transparent. France stands out through the powerful ARCOM—which, unlike in other countries, operates with little parliamentary oversight.
The EBMS: A Lever to Centralize Regulation at the European Level
Beyond national differences, the study highlights a deeper trend: the growing Europeanization of media regulation. From the revised 2018 AVMS Directive to the recent EU Regulation 2024/1083 (European Media Freedom Act), the European Commission has steadily multiplied binding texts.
Behind seemingly neutral objectives—protecting minors, countering foreign interference, defending pluralism—lie vague, subjective concepts: “divisive content,” “hate speech,” “disinformation.” These notions, once interpreted by regulators, often result in the marginalization of dissenting voices.
The creation of the European Board for Media Services (EBMS) embodies this logic. Though presented as a coordinating body, it can in practice issue recommendations that national regulators are expected to implement. This marks a decisive shift: a step toward centralizing ideological oversight at the EU level.
Reaffirming Media Sovereignty and Democratic Pluralism
The study does not stop at critique. It offers concrete proposals for reform, both at the European and national levels:
-
Clarify vague terms: especially “hate speech” and “disinformation,” which must be legally defined to avoid arbitrary interpretations.
-
Recognize a conflictual pluralism: ensure minority or radical voices a minimum presence in public debate, especially on state-funded platforms.
-
Reform ARCOM: in France, this would mean linking the authority directly to Parliament, making its deliberations public, and submitting its sanctions to pluralist counter-assessments.
Reaffirming Media Sovereignty and Democratic Pluralism
The study does not stop at critique. It offers concrete proposals for reform, both at the European and national levels:
-
Clarify vague terms: especially “hate speech” and “disinformation,” which must be legally defined to avoid arbitrary interpretations.
-
Recognize a conflictual pluralism: ensure minority or radical voices a minimum presence in public debate, especially on state-funded platforms.
-
Reform ARCOM: in France, this would mean linking the authority directly to Parliament, making its deliberations public, and submitting its sanctions to pluralist counter-assessments.
