Media Reporting and Reference Guide on LGBT Issues

132. Apart from the requirements applicable to statements <strong>and</strong> publications (including
broadcasts) under the general law (discussed in the following section), the degree of specific
regulation to which the media <strong>and</strong> the internet are subject varies from one member State
to another. In some instances there is a requirement to obtain a licence or franchise to
operate. There may also be a requirement to abide by certain st<strong>and</strong>ards, with the imposition
of sanctions – including the permanent or temporary loss of the licence or franchise being
possible – where these are breached. In other instances there may only be a requirement to
observe certain st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> the existence of some power to enjoin the particular material
from being put into circulation, as well as the possibility of exercising indirect influence
through the grant of subsidies in cash or in kind that are subject to the fulfilment of certain
conditions. Yet in others there are no particular requirements to be observed apart from
those under the generally applicable law.
Basic requirements
133. All regulatory action with respect to the media <strong>and</strong> the Internet – including that directed
to the use of hate speech – must be consistent with the right to freedom of expression <strong>and</strong>
afford the safeguards against misuse of power applicable to all legal measures affecting the
exercise of this right (considered in the following section). Recommendation 7 does not
suggest that any new regulatory powers should be adopted but does indicate that effective
use should be made of all existing ones – including the full range of available sanctions –
that might be relevant to tackling the use of hate speech. For this purpose, however, it is
important – as it has been already observed – that the underst<strong>and</strong>ing of hate speech relied
upon should be as wide as the one found in the Recommendation. In addition, such powers
as exist will only be useful if the relevant bodies both actively monitor the entities that they
are meant to regulate – including taking the initiative to look at the way certain groups of
persons are being portrayed – <strong>and</strong> respond promptly to instances where the use of hate
speech is drawn to their attention.
134. Moreover, the regulatory bodies should ensure that there is sufficient public awareness
of their role so that such instances are actually drawn to their attention. Regrettably, it is
recalled that in the monitoring cycles it has been noted that the relevant bodies sometimes
only exist on paper as they have not actually been properly constituted <strong>and</strong> this clearly
needs to be remedied for any regulatory action to occur. However, consistent with the need
to respect the right to freedom of expression, those with regulatory roles should appreciate
the desirability of giving preference to using such powers as they have to encourage effective
self-regulation of the use of hate speech rather than seeking themselves to intervene directly
with the operation of the media <strong>and</strong> the Internet.
116