18 November 2020 – Freedom of expression on the Internet must have some limits, as does freedom of speech, said participants in today’s online panel Freedom of expression on the Internet: A common challenge for Serbia and the EU, organised by European Policy Centre (CEP).

The panel consisted of Paul-Henri Presset, Head of Information, Communication and Media at the EU Delegation to Serbia, Paul Butcher, a political analyst at the European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels, Viktor Marković, one of the editors of the njuz.net, Nevena Krivokapić Martinović, lawyer and coordinator for freedom of expression and online media at the SHARE Foundation,  as well as a youth representative Irina Radosavljević. The discussion was moderated by the programme manager and senior researcher at CEP, Sena Marić.

Irina Radosavljević conveyed the conclusions from the consultations with youth that CEP held the day before this event, and where it gathered 20 young people aged 16 to 24 from all over Serbia.

Most young people, she said, believe that the best solution for regulating speech on the Internet would be the formation of a new independent body specialised for regulating the problematic content on social media platforms such as hate speech and fake news and that REM (Regulatory authority for electronic media in Serbia) should be included in the work of that body. But also, parents need to be informed as much as possible on this topic, she believes.

Establishing a legal framework is something that the SHARE Foundation is also committed to. “And people should definitely be more informed about these topics, especially parents – most parents are not even aware of what is happening on social networks. Media literacy is something that should be mandatory in schools, so through that, both parents and teachers will be more aware of potential problems,” said Krivokapić Martinović. She also mentioned that the owners of large platforms are among the richest people in the world, as well as that they have enormous power to influence world events. “One of the good ways in which EU regulations have helped ordinary citizens protect themselves is the GDPR,” said Krivokapić Martinović. She added that SHARE is in favour of passing a new Law on Public Information and Media, which would recognise and thus regulate social media platforms, although they are not “media” in the traditional sense of the word.

Viktor Marković, an editor of the website which deliberately makes “fake news” and reacts to real events with satire, noted that older people are most often “victims” of fake news and that it is necessary to talk more about the problem. “I think that education is the most important thing here. Regulation by the state or an international organisation is not the solution, I think things would get worse then. The problem is that people who have no experience are ready to believe in everything, and it is necessary to educate them to check the source before they believe in something and share it further. We, for example, do not believe in any news at first glance and we always check the sources well, because several times we have reacted with satirical fake news to the news that was actually – fake,” he said.

The way people communicate on the Internet is a relatively new way of communicating and we are still not aware of all the negative sides, Presset believes.

“The European Union is working to identify problems and reduce negative practices seen online – fake news, breaches of privacy, cyberbullying…,” he said.

He also mentioned that none of these things are new – only the environment in which it takes place has changed, that is, it is no longer live.

“Article 10 of the European Declaration of Human Rights talks about restrictions on freedoms, when, for example, security is at stake. Freedom of speech, therefore, has been restricted for a long time, in a way – now we are only trying to apply that in another environment. The EU has a responsibility not to control the internet, but to protect human rights.”

Paul Butcher said that we must not forget that social media platforms have many advantages and that there is a reason why we spend so much time on them. “The question is how to establish borders – what is just humour, as in the example of njuz.net in Serbia, and what is false guidance of people.” He noted that, despite the fact that the EU encouraged the platforms to be more responsible, it did not give enough results.

“So, it is necessary to regulate the Internet with a framework in which there will be clear guidelines on what we can and cannot do. Platforms would be required to sign that document,” Butcher suggests.

“The Western Balkans and Serbia are in an even more vulnerable position than the EU, because media literacy is lower than in other parts of Europe, and the political situation is such that, unfortunately, it affects the flourishing phenomenon of fake news and the spread of misinformation, “Bucher said.

“Unfortunately, no one is immune to this phenomenon – and now, during the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen how fake news can also endanger public health, and not just affect political attitudes,” he said.

Watch the video from the event here.

This event is part of the project Make Future Together: EU and the Western Balkans from the Youth Perspective, implemented by a network of think tanks from 6 countries in the region (Think for Europe Network – TEN) together with International Affairs Institute in Rome, Bronislaw Geremek Foundation in Warsaw and European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels. The project is funded by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) through the Europe for Citizens program.

12 November 2020 – The two-day activity of the Foreign Policy Initiative BH Youth Online: Can you hear me from the screen? as a part of the project Make Future Together: The EU and the Western Balkans from Youth Perspective, which consisted of yesterday’s focus group with young people from all over Bosnia and Herzegovina and today’s panel discussion that included experts and youth representatives from yesterday’s event with the goal to raise awareness of the Internet and the socio-political engagement of young people towards a wider audience, and to provide concrete solutions.

Over the last few years, the scope and use of digital tools such as social media has expanded significantly in many areas of our daily lives. One of them is the political sphere, where citizens get involved in discussions and debates and gather information about political events. The aim of the event is to explore the practices and attitude of young people on this issue, in order to determine how social media can be used as a tool to strengthen democracy. Topics discussed were internet freedom, misinformation and fake news.

Today, representatives of young people who discussed at yesterday’s event, had the opportunity to present their views, opinions and conclusions about social networks and the Internet in general, as a means for their daily activities. By talking to people who work directly in this field, such as Irhana Čajdin from Group 9 and Emir Zulejhić from the Raskrinkavanje.ba portal, they came to new insights into practices concerning young people online. Of course, on behalf of the Delegation of the European Union in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vladimir Pandurevic, Head of the Civil Society Program, EIDHR, also addressed us, emphasizing that active cooperation with young people is what makes such projects successful.

Some of the conclusions from yesterday’s discussion include “two sides of the same coin” (that is, the Internet), where young people singled out the following: positive sides include information gathering, online social activism and connecting with family and friends, whereas fake news, bad influence on the mental state of users, and hate speech depict the negative sides. In addition, young people dedicated their discussions to proposing possible solutions, highlighting the reporting of negative content, continuous education of young people, and indicating the use of beauty filters in published photos.

Youth Online: Can you hear me from the screen? is a part of the project Make Future Together: The EU and the Western Balkans from Youth Perspective which is implemented by the Foreign Policy Initiative BH in cooperation with other members of the regional Think For Europe Network (TEN), the Institute for International Relations in Rome, the Bronislaw Geremek Foundation Center in Warsaw and the Centre for European Policy in Brussels. The project is funded by the European Union as a part of their Europe for Citizens program.

As in the previous five years, based on the methodology of the European Commission, IA transformed the report’ assessments into numbers in order to see scores in a simpler way, and compare the situation with previous years. Although this is the first report of the new commissioner Várhelyi and his team, it does not differ significantly from the previous one.

Assessments given by Commission are: “backsliding” (1), “no progress” (2), “some/limited progress” (3), “good progress” (4) and “very good progress’’ (5). We assigned them numbers from 1-5 and got the grades that we will compare in the coming days with the grades that our neighbor-countries got, and make a regional cross-section.

New report from the European Commission (EC) shows that Montenegro continued to have moderate results in the European integration process. This year, as well as last year, we did not receive any excellent grade, but we did not receive any “backsliding” grade, which means there were no 5s and no 1s. The lack of ”fives” also explains the slowness in closing the chapters.

The average assessment for Montenegro is 3,18 – which is slightly better than last year when the total score for all chapters was 3,09. However, this grade Montenegro also had in 2016, so that after four years it has only returned to the previous level. The 3,18 score is maximum that Montenegro has ever reached since the introduction of this scoring system.

The better assessment compared to the one from last year implies from the fact that seven chapters received a very good grade this year, although, twenty-five chapters remained at the middle level, ie. 75% of chapters have a triple.

Worst of all rated chapters is Chapter 14 ,,Transport policy’’. This chapter received a lower grade than last year and it is also the only chapter of 33 that received assessment of two.

When it comes to chapters related to the rule of law, Chapter 23 is noticeably in worse position than Chapter 24. Namely, although both chapters received an average assessment three, metaphorically speaking, Chapter 23 has a weak three, and Chapter 24 a strong three score. This implies from the three sub criteria assessed in these chapters, so Chapter 23 has two assessment of “limited progress’’ and one of “no progress’’, while Chapter 24 has three ratings of “some progress’’.

Out of 25 chapters that received score three, 8 received a “weak” three and 17 a “strong” three score.

Good progress with the assessment ”four” has been noted in the following seven chapters: chapter 6 ,,Company law’’, chapter 9 ,, Financial services’’, chapter 11 ,,Agriculture and rural development’’, chapter 12 ,,Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy’’, chapter 16 ,,Taxation’’, chapter 19 ,, Social Policy and employment’’ and chapter 25 ,,Science and Research’’.

This confirmed IA’s opinion on the worrying stagnation, especially bearing in mind that we have entered the ninth year of accession negotiations with the EU. Same problems are being rewritten from year to year, without major progress. The report is very comprehensive and in addition to a precise description of the situation, a qualitative analysis of the problem, it contains clear guidelines and recommendations that the new government should adhere to very strictly, if we want the next report to be better.