'Loaded weapon': editors decry Hungary bill targeting media
The Hungarian government's decision to delay a vote on a controversial bill which penalises "foreign-funded" media and NGOs does not mean that the danger to freedom of the press is over, top editors warn.
The government is still committed to a "campaign to shut down, destroy or discredit certain media outlets, NGOs or people", Peter Uj, editor-in-chief of news site 444, told AFP.
Critics say the bill, which they compare to Russia's foreign agent legislation, is the latest attempt by nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban to tighten his control over the central European country of 9.5 million people since his return to power in 2010.
Tens of thousands have protested against the bill in Budapest, with another rally to take place on Tuesday.
The European Commission has also called on Hungary to withdraw the draft, while representatives of more than 80 media outlets from 22 countries -- including Britain's The Guardian and France's Liberation -- have slammed it.
The bill was introduced last month and a vote was scheduled for this week, but the ruling coalition last week put it off, saying that debate would continue in the autumn and that it wanted to review "substantive comments received" from "serious organisations" other than those protesting.
- 'Devious' -
The legislation would blacklist organisations that "threaten the sovereignty of Hungary by using foreign funding to influence public life".
Any kind of support from non-Hungarian citizens, EU funds, or even advertising revenues from companies based abroad constitutes foreign funding, according to commonly accepted legal interpretations.
Blacklisted groups would need permission to receive foreign funds. They would also be barred from receiving donations through a Hungarian income tax contribution scheme, an important source of revenue for non-profits.
The legal changes could affect any independent Hungarian media outlets, with 444, internet TV Partizan and news site Telex explicitly targeted.
Partizan editor-in-chief Marton Gulyas, 39, described the new bill as "devious".
"The law would create economic tools to make it impossible for listed organisations to function," he told AFP.
The online channel, which was founded in 2018 and has a staff of 70, was the top beneficiary last year of the income tax contribution scheme, receiving more than one million euros ($1.1 million) from over 35,000 supporters.
Gulyas rejected the notion that Partizan is "foreign-funded", stressing that the channel had only applied for EU-based grants in the past two years.
"Hungary has been a part of the European Union since 2004. There are no borders or customs, yet this money is now being treated as if there could be some kind of criminality involved," he said.
- 'Will not back down' -
Telex editor-in-chief Tamas Nemet, 44, said that advertising and reader support make up 92 percent of the outlet's revenue.
"But the law would now make those unviable" through various legal hurdles and administrative burdens, according to Nemet.
One of Hungary's most popular news sources with a staff of around 100, Telex was established in 2021, after Nemet and his colleagues resigned en masse from the country's then-top news site, Index.hu, over alleged political interference.
"We can see quite clearly what those in power want, the weapon is loaded and on the table," he said, adding that the "truth cannot be banned".
"We will not back down," he said, vowing to "overcome whatever they come up with to hinder our operations".
Orban says the law is needed to fight the alleged spread of foreign interference and disinformation.
Uj of 444, along with his colleagues from Telex and Partizan, described the bill as "absurd" and "a political weapon designed to keep independent media in constant fear and to take us out".
He decried rules "worded in such a way they are impossible to comply with".
The 53-year-old Uj and colleagues set up the news site in 2013.
It employs about 35 journalists and has broken several stories, including a child abuse pardon scandal, which last year led to the resignation of then-president Katalin Novak, a key Orban ally.
AFP partners with its sister site Lakmusz for fact-checking.
ros/jza/gv/bc
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge
President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he plans to revert the names of seven major Army bases back to the Confederate generals for which they were originally named. 'We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee,' Trump said. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts, it's no time to change.' Trump's announcement, during a speech to soldiers at Fort Bragg, follows Biden-administration era alterations in 2023 that changed the installation names to honor new, non-Confederate individuals. Those included changing Fort Hood to Fort Cavazos, for the Army's first four-star Hispanic general. The Army previously redesignated Fort Liberty, previously known as Fort Bragg, to its original name, but honoring Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II hero instead of the Confederate general Braxton Bragg. The service also redesignated Fort Moore, after Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, for Fred G. Benning, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I. The Army is taking the same approach for the bases tapped for renaming on Tuesday, finding award-winning soldiers with the same last names as the Confederate generals to name the bases after, according to a statement released by the service after the president's speech. The president gave no timeline for the name changes and it was not immediately clear whether the Army's bases would be renamed after Confederate generals or soldiers from different eras. One army official, granted anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak, said they were caught off guard by the rapid-fire developments, which could take months to Army did not immediately respond to POLITICO's request for comment. Though the Trump administration insisted the redesignations were in-line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or battles, Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who was the vice chair of the Congressional Naming Commission, which is tasked with relabeling bases and U.S. military assets, said that Trump's decision went against the spirit of the new rule enacted after the George Floyd protests. 'The bottom line is he's choosing surname over service,' said Seidule, who's now a visiting professor at Hamilton College. 'It is breaking the spirit of a law that was created by the will of the American people through their elected representatives.' Seidule said that the commission, which was made up of three Republicans, one Democrat and four retired flag officers, spent 20 months seeking input from the public and got 33,000 responses to change the names of Army bases and other installations and assets named after Confederates, including several U.S. Navy ships. But he said the decision still reflected that the Trump administration 'realizes that Confederates chose treason to preserve slavery, and they are unworthy of having bases named for them in America in 2025.' On Tuesday, Trump criticized Biden at several points during his speech, which was full of asides about immigration, transgender Americans and the spending bill currently being debated in Congress. His political comments in front of hundreds of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division led to a smattering of boos from the mostly uniformed audience when he criticized former President Joe Biden. Audience members also jeered when Trump mentioned California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom the president clashed with over protests in California that were sparked by the Trump administration's immigration raids. Presidents normally avoid giving political speeches to military personnel. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden,' Trump said at one point in his remarks. 'I don't think so.' 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again,' Trump said, claiming parts of the city are under the control of international criminal gangs. The president has ordered 4,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, though so far only about 300 guardsmen have entered the city. The Marines are positioned outside Los Angeles, where they're undergoing training on crowd control, said one defense official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The move to rename Army bases comes just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to relabel a Navy vessel named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk as well as other ships named after civil rights leaders and women. Seidule, the retired Army brigadier general who served on the Biden-era naming commission, said that Trump's decision creates the risk that future administrations could take turns renaming the Army's bases. 'What happens if some other administration would name something after someone that one party thinks is just absolutely beyond the pale,' said Seidule. 'I think that this could absolutely be a tennis match.' Sam Skove contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As Russia inches closer to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, new Ukrainian region might soon be at war
Moscow said its troops had crossed into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and were conducting offensive operations in the region, a claim Kyiv quickly denied as 'Russian disinformation.' Russian troops have been pushing toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast for months, trying to solidify the southern flank to capture Pokrovsk and the remaining parts of the adjacent Donetsk Oblast. Western military experts who spoke to the Kyiv Independent said it was clear that Russian troops would eventually penetrate the southeastern region. But they didn't expect either side to throw 'a significant amount of forces' in this sector, as the capture of Donetsk Oblast remains Moscow's main objective. Emil Kastehelmi, an analyst at the Finland-based Black Bird Group, confirmed that geolocation shows Russian troops entered Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in recent days. Russian troops will likely advance 'at least somewhat' deeper in the coming months, though it won't change the overall dynamic of the front line, he added. Kastehelmi believes that Russian troops could try advancing northwest from the southern flank of Pokrovsk to encircle the city that is already penetrated from the southern and eastern sides. 'The Russians probably have understood that if they want to make a proper encirclement threat, they need to widen the flanks and then continue operations near Pokrovsk,' Kastehelmi told the Kyiv Independent. The Russian Defense Ministry said on June 8 that its troops were pushing forward in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast — a region adjacent to Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts but have thus not seen combat actions. It added that the Russian military's 90th Guards Tank Division units had reached the western border of Donetsk Oblast and were thrusting forward into the industrial Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. The Ukrainian military immediately denied the claim, saying that the fighting continued inside Donetsk Oblast, calling Russia's claims 'disinformation.' The Ukrainian monitoring project DeepState has put the proximity of Russian troops to the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border at about two kilometers, yet painting that distance between the regional border and the alleged position of Russian troops as no man's land. The Kyiv Independent requested a comment to the General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces but has not heard back in time of publication. Even if militarily not as significant, the Russian penetration into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast would mean yet another Ukrainian region would be now a warzone. It could also help strengthen the Russian negotiation position as the U.S. continues to push both sides to hold peace talks to end the war at all costs. "If they [russians] find a weak spot, they will try to exploit it.' Russia had begun its long-expected offensive in April but has only made limited gains since then, besides opening a new front in the northeastern Sumy Oblast by occupying a number of border villages there. Kastehelmi from the Black Bird Group said that the Ukrainian defense of Pokrovsk would be compromised if Russian troops are able to widen their flanks, which would enable them to bring their support elements forward. 'It can mean that they may be able in the summer to threaten the remaining supply routes to the city in a way which makes it even more dangerous for Ukrainian units,' Kastehelmi said. Kastehelmi added that it would be 'an operational success' for Moscow if it is able to first expand its flank westward toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and then begin attacking northward, while also building on the eastern flank. But he stressed that Russian troops have not been the best at coordinating attacks, even if it looks 'doable' on paper. Jakub Janovsky, a Prague-based military analyst at the Oryx open-source project tracking Ukrainian and Russian equipment losses, said that it likely won't make 'any difference' if Russian troops advanced a kilometer or two into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. He added that Russia appears to be continuing to rely heavily on small infantry group assaults, either on foot or motorcycles, thus decreasing the use of Soviet-era BMP fighting vehicles or tanks. 'It seems more likely that Russia will focus on Donetsk Oblast,' Janovsky told the Kyiv Independent. 'But it's entirely possible that if they find a weak spot, they will try to exploit it.' Read also: Inside Russia, calls for peace come with conditions — and Kremlin talking points We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
