Yes, which is run by members who were selected by and are directly connected with the government. So a former Fidesz party member heads the Media Authority, and she now decides whether any kind of media—online, blogs, print, radio, television—meet these content requirements. If a radio station that plays music but also runs 10 minutes of news every four hours, or a web-based video service or a professional blog offends “public morality,” they can now be sanctioned and fined under the law.
With a two-thirds majority in Parliament, Orbán says he is acting on the “will of people.” And so far, there has been little public outcry over the media law. Does this matter?
Keep in mind, only 53 percent of people who went to the polls voted for Fidesz, but it ends up that the government has a two-thirds majority according to the Hungarian electoral system. And changing the media system was not mentioned by Fidesz during their campaign—this was introduced by the party right after they won in April. So the government’s claim of having a popular mandate to make these kinds of laws is questionable.
And the “peoples’ will” argument is typical populist rhetoric and can be quite dangerous. When a government is elected they have a certain mandate to govern within the existing constitutional framework—unless there is a revolution, which there was not. Certain fundamental rights should not be determined by the “will of the people” but rather ensured and safeguarded by governments and the courts. Authorities must offer very strong arguments when regulating the press—in the case of hate speech, for instance. But the “peoples’ will” is not an argument for creating the kind of media system that went into effect this January. Even though polls now show support for Fidesz is slipping, it’s unlikely the government will change its “will of the people” rhetoric.
Fidesz also maintains its media legislation is in line with democratic media standards and other European states. Is this true?
No. The new Hungarian media law is a patchwork of the worst practices in the EU, with some extra limits on freedom of the press. It clashes with the fundamental principles of press independence in democratic societies and is based on how media worked fifty years ago in Hungary, when there were few media sources and people did not have the opportunity to get information. The public no longer relies on a single media source, where if the news were not “balanced” then they would be misinformed or misled.
There are some serious problems with free press issues within the EU and other Western democracies. Lots of governments regulate media in different ways and, for instance, filter Internet content. Think about the Decency Act in the US or the French model, which is totally opposed to net neutrality. There is libel tourism in Britain and ownership issues in Italy. Still, there is no precedent within the EU for a single, government-appointed authority to have powers to regulate content of all types of media, or to impose fines to Internet, broadcast, and print outlets, and to suspend or shut them down for not paying. What we’re facing at this stage is a single government exerting their influence on the media in a way we’ve not seen since 1989.
Isn’t Hungary bound to comply with EU media standards?
The European Commission can examine whether the law is in line with the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which regulates television and on-demand services, and the Electronic Commerce Directive, which regulates ISPs and liability issues, and some competition directives. If the law clashes with an EU directive, they can examine and oblige the member state to modify the law. Basic rights are also protected by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees from of expression and the press.
The EU has come under pressure to act. But what power does it have?

It's good to see Viktor Orban's abuses detailed in the international media. What Orban and Fidesz want to do to democracy in Europe is shocking.
#1 Posted by tom popper, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 02:55 AM
Amy Brouillette's Q&A underscores just how fragile freedom of the press is, not only in Hungary, but everywhere. Good for her for reporting on this important issue.
#2 Posted by Greg Sandler, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 06:33 PM
Amy Brouillette - the spin stops with her. This is better then Fox News and O'reilly. Excellent inquiries. You asked some probing questions which really expose the issues. Thankyou!!!
#3 Posted by james m. long, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 11:00 PM
Ms. Brouillette's interview provides a disturbing view of oppressive government in Central Europe. Given the revolutions is Tunisia and Egypt and the uprisings elsewhere against abuses of government (Wisconsin included), I am hoping that the citizens of Hungary wake up. This information makes one wonder if we (all rational beings) are incapable of learning from history.
#4 Posted by Jill Jones, CJR on Wed 2 Mar 2011 at 08:32 PM
Sometimes the questions that you know you will not like the answers to are the hardest to ask. It is the trait of a good journalist to ask these questions not on the basis of "will I like the answer", but on the behalf of those who never ask the question. Bravo Ms. Brouillette, for highlighting issues that although are taking place so far away, resonate in the US where we are not completely free of the very same shackles.
#5 Posted by Brad Charette, CJR on Fri 4 Mar 2011 at 04:31 PM