Promo-LEX seeks removal of the amendment regarding online disinformation
The Promo-LEX Association believes that the proposed amendments to draft law no. 381 on the sanctioning of hate speech and the introduction of a contravention for “online disinformation” are premature and could have negative effects on the application of existing legislation. In an opinion addressed to the Parliament's Legal, Appointments, and Immunities Committee, the association points out that legislative interventions should be made only after a detailed assessment of the impact of the current regulations.
Promo-LEX draws attention that the express addition of “sexist speech” to the definition of hate speech in the Contravention Code is unnecessary, as this form of expression is already covered by national and international legislation. The organization also challenges the inclusion of election officials among the persons protected by the provisions on hate speech, arguing that they do not represent a vulnerable group according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Regarding the proposal to introduce a new article in the Contravention Code on “online disinformation”, Promo-LEX states that this regulation contravenes the principles of clarity and predictability of the law and does not make a clear distinction between disinformation and hate speech. The organization recommends the elimination of this provision.
Promo-LEX emphasizes that the current regulations on hate speech are still in an early stage of application and that any legislative amendment should be made only after a comprehensive assessment of their impact.
"During 2022–2024, 7 contravention files were initiated regarding alleged violations of the provision of art. 52, paragraph (3) of the Contravention Code. These data show that the process of implementing the law on hate speech is at an early stage. Intervention in the text of the norm will negatively affect this process, the adjustment of the legal framework being recommended to be carried out at a distance of at least 5 years and after a comprehensive assessment of its application," reads the quoted source.
We remind you that the initiative was submitted to public consultations on March 21, but it was sent for re-examination after representatives of the opposition and civil society warned of the risks of censorship and violation of freedom of expression. Experts in media and freedom of expression believe that the initiative, although well-intentioned, is unclearly drafted, difficult to apply, and opens the way to possible abuses.
