Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law
Abstract
Europe is struggling with its commitment to robustly promoting the presumption of a right to freedom of expression. One situation (less-noted than the much-publicised "Danish cartoons controversy") is the banning of satellite television channels. Such broadcasts, it is claimed, incite hatred which leads to violence, including acts of terror. The European Union has been co-operating with the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities to ban certain third-country broadcasters transmitting programmes using satellites that are under EU jurisdiction. The US-based NGO, the Campaign against Terrorist Media, has been rather influential in promoting this policy.
This Paper deals with four issues of concern: Is the legal basis for such efforts clear enough? Are bans subject to sufficient, or any, judicial or parliamentary review or oversight? Are efforts proportionate to the perceived harm? And, is the process of deciding which channels to ban transparent enough-or, indeed, transparent at all? The key concern is that such Europeanlevel efforts (and related decisions at the national level) constitute merely-therefore prima facie unacceptable-administrative orders, which are neither reviewed judicially nor subject to any parliamentary oversight.
Disciplines
Communications Law | Human Rights Law | Law
Recommended Citation
David Goldberg,
Europe Bans Terrorist Media: What Sort of Antidote to Poisonous Voices?,
17
Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L.
445
(2009).
Available at:
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cjicl/vol17/iss3/5