Strasbourg, 17 janvier 1997    Restricted

    CM(97)14

    For consideration at the 584th meeting

    of the Ministers' Deputies

    (10-13 February 1997, A level, Item 5.1)

     STEERING COMMITTEE ON THE MASS MEDIA

    (CDMM)

    ________

    44th meeting, 26-29 November 1996

    Meeting Room of the Directorate, Human Rights Building

    Strasbourg

    ________

    LIST OF DECISIONS

    ________

    The Steering Committee on the Mass Media (CDMM) held its 44th meeting in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg from 26-29 November 1996. The meeting was chaired by Mr B. MÖWES (Germany). The list of participants is set out in Appendix I. The agenda, as adopted, appears in Appendix II.

    The CDMM approved three draft Recommendations, and the draft Explanatory Memoranda thereto, concerning (i) the portrayal of violence in the electronic media, (ii) "hate speech" and (iii) the media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance. The Committee of Ministers is invited to adopt the aforementioned draft Recommendations and to authorise the publication of the corresponding Explanatory Memoranda (cf Appendices III to V).

    The CDMM continued the preparation of the 5th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Greece, 1997) in terms of its content and organisation. In particular, the CDMM set guidelines for the further preparation of the draft political texts to be submitted to the Conference, took note of the outlines of the official reports to be presented on this occasion and discussed the possibility of postponing the date of the Conference. The Committee of Ministers is invited to note that it will be requested to take all necessary follow-up action on the decisions taken by the

CDMM when examining the report of the Secretary General on the preparation of Conferences of Specialised Ministers.

    The CDMM reviewed the work carried out by certain of its subordinate bodies (MM-S-NT, MM-CM, MM-S-AC, MM-S-EP and MM-S-PR), and gave them guidelines for the follow-up of their work. In the case of the Group of Specialists on access to official information (MM-S-AC), the Committee of Ministers is invited to note that the CDMM has decided to consult the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH) and the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) with a view to examining ways in which these two bodies might contribute to the work of the MMS-AC.

    The CDMM agreed to propose to the Committee of Ministers that the Group of Specialists on the protection of rights holders in the media sector (MM-S-PR) be authorised to hold its 4th meeting in Paris on 24 and 25 April 1997, in order to enable the MM-S-PR to attend a Seminar to be organised on the previous day by the French authorities on the identification of network-distributed digital works. The Committee of Ministers is invited to authorise the MM-S-PR to hold its 4th meeting in Paris in April 1997, it being understood that the additional costs entailed in organising the meeting outside Strasbourg will be borne by the French authorities.

    The CDMM examined the implementation of its 1997 work programme, with a view in particular to preparing the content of the 5th Ministerial Conference. Furthermore, the CDMM held a round-table discussion on developments in the media sector in the countries of central and eastern Europe represented on the Steering Committee. In this context, the CDMM noted the importance of obtaining voluntary financial contributions from the member States to ensure the implementation of the Medium-term training programme of the Council of Europe for media professionals in Central and Eastern European countries.

    The CDMM held an exchange of views on all the work carried out by the European Union in the media field. The Committee of Ministers might wish to note that the CDMM has requested access to the documents brought together by the European Commission in the context of its work on the new communications technologies, with a view to making use of these documents in the activities of the Steering Committee on the subject.

    The CDMM took note of the conclusions of the 8th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs (Budapest, 28-29 October 1996) concerning, in particular, the draft European Convention on the protection of the audiovisual heritage. The Committee of Ministers might wish to note that the CDMM expressed its willingness to provide assistance to the Culture Committee in the finalisation of the draft Convention.

    The CDMM also conducted elections for the offices of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and member of the Bureau; exchanged views with the Executive Director of the European Audiovisual Observatory; took note of the progress made in the establishment of the MEDIALEX database; took note of the ongoing work of the Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television; examined a questionnaire on the follow-up to be given to the work of the Steering Committee for Equality between women and men (CDEG) concerning traffic in women and forced prostitution and instructed its Bureau to finalise the CDMM's reply to this questionnaire; fixed the dates of its meetings, as well as those of its subordinate committees, for the first half of 1997 and finalised the items to be included on the agenda of its 45th meeting (June 1997).

    APPENDIX I

    List of participants

Albania/Albanie Mr Xhyher MECORRAPAJ, Director of Press and Information Centre, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, TIRANA

Andorra/Andorre [Excusé/apologised]

Austria/Autriche Dr Viktor KREUSCHITZ, Head of Division, Federal Chancellery, Ballhausplatz 2, A-1014 VIENNA; Mr Josef LUSSER, Département des Affaires Juridiques et des Relations Internationales, ORF, Würzburggasse 30, A-1136 VIENNA

Belgium/Belgique M. Michel HERCKENS, Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Service du Conseil de l'Europe (P42), 2 rue des Quatre Bras, B-1000 BRUXELLES; M. Dominique VOSTERS, Attaché à la Direction Générale de la Culture et de la Communication, Ministère de la Culture et des Affaires Sociales de la Communauté française de la Belgique, 44 Boulevard Leopold II, B-1080 BRUXELLES

Bulgaria/Bulgarie Mr Petko TODOROV, General Secretary, Committee of Posts and Telecommunications, 6 Gourko Street, 1000 SOFIA; Ms Jana KOJUCHAROVA, Secretary General of the Bulgarian News Agency, 49 Tzarigradsko chausse Bld, 1040 SOFIA

Croatia/Croatie Ms Dasa BRADICIC, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trg Nikole Subica Zrinskog 708, 41000 ZAGREB

Cyprus/Chypre Mr Christophoros CHRISTOFOROU, Press and Information Office, Ministry of the Interior, 1456 NICOSIA, CYPRUS

Czech Republic/République Tchèque Ms Jaromira MIZEROVA, Vice director of Foreign Relations Department, Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, Milady Horàkové 139/16000 PRAGUE 6; Mr Zdenek PRIHODA, Foreign Relations Department, Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, Milady Horàkové 139/16000 PRAGUE 6

Denmark/Danemark Ms Vibeke G. PETERSEN, Ministry of Culture, Nybrogade 2, DK-1203 COPENHAGEN K

Estonia/Estonie Mr Rein VEIDEMANN, Media Counsellor, Ministry of Culture, 23, Suur-Karja Str., EE-0100 TALLINN

Finland/Finlande Ms Kristina HAUTALA-KAJOS, Media Policy Adviser, Ministry of Education, Department of Culture, Meritullinkatu 10, PO Box 293, FIN-00171 HELSINKI

France Mme Marie-Christine WELLHOFF, (Chairperson of the MM-S-NT/Présidente du MM-S-NT) Direction de l'Action Audiovisuelle Extérieure, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, 244 boulevard Saint Germain, F - 75303 PARIS; Mme Chantal FOURNIER, Service juridique et technique de l'information du Premier Ministre, 69, rue de Varenne, F-75007 PARIS

Germany/Allemagne Mr Bernd MÖWES, (Chairman/Président) Head of Section "National and International Media", Bundeskanzleramt, Adenauerallee 139-141, 53106 BONN; Mr Frithjof BERGER, Federal Ministry of the Interior, Graurheindorferstr 198, D-53117 BONN

Greece/Grèce Mme Glykeria MITROPOULOU, Section Media, Ministère de la Presse et des Media, Zalokosta 10, GR-101 63 ATHENES; M. Alexandros EKONOMOU, Conseiller Juridique, Ministère de la Presse et des Media, Zalokosta 10, GR-101 63 ATHENES

Hungary/Hongrie Mr Peter SZENTE, Ministry of Culture and Education, Szalay U. 10, H-1055 BUDAPEST

Iceland/Islande Mr Pétur GUDFINNSSON, Director of Television, Icelandic State Broadcasting Service, Laugavegi 176, 105 REYKJAVIK

Ireland/Irlande Mr Martin DENNANY, Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, "Dún Aimhirgin", 43-49 Mespil Road, IR-DUBLIN 4

Italy/Italie [Excusé/apologised: M. Mauro MASI, Chef du Département de l'Information et de l'Edition, Présidence du Conseil des Ministres, Via Po No 16A, I-00198 ROME; Mme Elisabetta BATTISTA, Relations internationales, Département pour l'Information et l'Edition, Présidence du Conseil des Ministres, Via Po No 16A, I-00198 ROME; M. Antonino CASCINO, (Chairman of the MM-S-IN/Président du MM-S-IN) Istituto di Studi sull' Innovazione nei Mass Media, Via del Tritone 61-D, 00187 ROMA; Ms Alessandra PARADISI, Assistant, International Relations, RAI, Viale Mazzini, 14, I-00195 ROME; M. Alessandro OVI, S.T.E.T, Via Abruzzi, 3, I-00187 ROMA

Latvia/Lettonie Mr Andrejs PILDEGOVICS, Acting Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 36 Brivibas Bulv. LV 1395 RIGA

Liechtenstein [Apologised/excusé]

Lithuania/Lituanie Dr Laimonas TAPINAS, Director, Lithuanian Journalism Centre, 7 Maironio, VILNIUS 2600

Luxembourg M. Marco SGRECCIA, Ministère d'Etat, Service des Médias et de l'Audiovisuel, 5 rue Large, L-1917 LUXEMBOURG

Malta/Malte Dr Peter GRECH, Assistant to the Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, The Palace, M-VALLETTA CMR02

Moldova/Moldavie Mr Valeriu TUREA, Directeur de la Direction Mass Media, MAE de la République de Moldavie, Piata Mazii Adunari Nationale 1, CHISINAU

Netherlands/Pays-Bas Mr Herman C. VAN DER PLAS, Policy Adviser - media and press, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Room J 271, PO Box 25000, NL-2700 LZ ZOETERMEER; Mrs Helga ZEINSTRA, Policy Adviser - media and press, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, PO Box 25000, NL-2700 LZ ZOETERMEER

Norway/Norvège Ms Nina ØKLAND, Head of Division, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, PO Box 8030 Dep, N-0030 OSLO

Poland/Pologne Mr Boleslaw SULIK, National Council of Television and Broadcasting, Sk Kard Wyszynskiego 9, 01 015 WARSAW; Ms Isabel CHRUSLINSKA, National Council of Television and Broadcasting, Sk Kard Wyszynskiego 9, 01 015 WARSAW; Mr Karol JAKUBOWICZ, (Chairman of the MM-CM/Président du MM-CM), Chairman, Board of Polish Television, ul J. P. Woronicza 17, PL-00999 WARSAW

Portugal Mme Teresa RIBEIRO, (Vice-Chairperson/Vice-Présidente) Cabinet d'appui à la Presse, Presidencia do Conselho de Ministros, Palacio Foz, Restauradores, P-1200 LISBONNE; M. Rui Nelson ASSIS FERREIRA, Haute Autorité pour les Médias, Av D. Carlos I, 130 6o, P-1200 LISBONNE

Romania/Roumanie M. Paul SOLOC, Directeur DEI de la Télévision Roumaine, Televiziunea Romana, Calea Dorobantilor No 191, Sector 1, BUCAREST

Russian Federation/Fédération de Russie M. Mikhail DEMOURINE, Vice-Directeur du Département de l'Information et de la Presse du Ministère des Affaires étrangères de la Russie, Smolenskaya-Sennaya 32/31, MOSCOW

San Marino/Saint Marin [Excusé/apologised]

Slovakia/Slovaquie [Excusé/apologised: Mr Lubomir JURIK, National Council of the Slovak Republic, Mudronova 1, 81101 BRATISLAVA]; Mrs Sylvia KLAUSOVA-VOLZ, STS, SK 840 48, BRATISLAVA; Mr Lubomir SISAK, Ministry of Culture, Nám. SNP 33, 813 31 BRATISLAVA; Mr Ivan SECIK, Ministry of Culture, Nám. SNP 33, 813 31 BRATISLAVA

Slovenia/Slovénie Mr Joze OSTERMAN, Adviser, Public Relations and Media Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, Levstikova 10, LJUBLJANA 61000; Mr Matjaz GERL, Adviser, Broadcasting Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Svet za radiodifuzijo, Parmova 53, LJUBLJANA 1000

Spain/Espagne M. Carlos L. CRESPO MARTINEZ, Chef du Service du Régime juridique de la radiodiffusion et la télévision, Direction Générale des Télécommunications, Palacio de Comunicaciones, Plaza de Cibeles, E-28071 MADRID

Sweden/Suède Ms Anita JOHANSSON, Ministry of Culture, S-103 33 STOCKHOLM; Ms Monica BENGTSSON, Ministry of Culture, S-103 33 STOCKHOLM

Switzerland/Suisse M. Frédéric RIEHL, Vice-Directeur, Office Fédéral de la Communication (OFCOM), 44 rue de l'Avenir, CH-2501 BIENNE ; M. Michel PACHE, Chef du Service international des media, Département Fédéral des Affaires Etrangères, Eigerplatz 1, CH-3003 BERNE

"The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"/"L'ex-République Yougoslave de Macédoine" Ms Ana PANOVSKA, Secretary of the Secretariat of Information, Government of "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", SKOPJE; Ms Negoslava GLASNOVIC, Adviser to the Secretary, Secretariat of Information, Government of "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", SKOPJE

Turkey/Turquie Mr Nedim TEKIN, Member, Radio-TV Supreme Council, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Bul. 68, Maltepe, 06680 ANKARA; Mrs Sebnem BILGET, Head of International Relations, Radio-TV Supreme Council (RTÜK), Kubilay Sokak 1 Tandogan, ANKARA

Ukraine Mr Yuriy SERGEYEV, Head of the Directorate of Information, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Mychailovska Squ 1, 252108 KYIV;

United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni Ms Carolyn MORRISON, Department of National Heritage, 2-4 Cockspur Street, LONDON SW1Y 5DH; Mr Charles RAMSDEN, (Chairman of the MM-S-AC, Président du MM-S-AC) Open Government, Public Bodies and Public Appointments Division Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, GB-LONDON SW1

OTHER PARTICIPANTS/AUTRES PARTICIPANTS

European Commission/Commission européenne Mme Marie-Odile DEN HARTOG, DG1A/A/5, (MO 34 5/104), Commission européenne, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 BRUXELLES; Mme Sabine VON ZANTHIER, DGX, Commission européenne, rue de la Loi 102, 6/10 B-1049 BRUXELLES; M. Nicholas PLATTEN, Direction Générale du Marché Intérieur et des Services financiers, (C 107 - 2/20, Commission européenne, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 BRUXELLES; M. Salvatore D'ACUNTO, Direction Générale, Marché Intérieur et des Services financiers, (C 107 - 8/47, Commission européenne, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 BRUXELLES

Parliamentary Assembly/Assemblée Parlementaire [Excusé/apologised: Mr Albert PROBST, Vice-Chairman, Sub-Committee on the Media (Committee on Culture and Education), Bundeshaus, D-53113 BONN]; [Excusé/apologised: Mr Flavio RODEGHEIRO, Deputy, Camera dei Deputati, I-11086 ROME]; Mr Joao ARY, Secretary to the Sub-Committee on the Media, Parliamentary Assembly, Strasbourg

OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS

Armenia/Arménie Excusé/apologised

Azerbaïdjan M. Gabil KOTCHARLY, Chef du Département de l'Information du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ganjlar Meidany 3, 370005 BAKU

Belarus/Bélarus [Apologised/excusé: Mr Valery KALINOUSKI, Editor, Politics Section, "Zvyazda", Khmelnitskogo Str 10a, 22013 Minsk, Republic of Belarus]

Georgia/Géorgie Mr Malchas RADIANI, Head of Press Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4 Chitadze St., 380018 Tbilisi

Holy See/Saint-Siège M. Hans-Peter RÖTHLIN, Sous-Secrétaire du Conseil Pontifical des Communications Sociales, CITE DU VATICAN

Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)/Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe M. Michel PACHE, Chef du Service international des media, Département Fédéral des Affaires Etrangères, Eigerplatz 1, CH-3003 BERNE

Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT)/ Association des Télévisions Commerciales Européennes (ACT) M. Daniel ZIMMERMANN, Directeur Général, ACT, 7 Square Ambiorix, BRUXELLES B-1000

AUDIOVISUAL EUREKA/EUREKA AUDIOVISUEL Mlle Daniela COROIANU, Stagiaire, EUREKA AUDIOVISUEL, Rue de la Bonté 5-7, B-1050 BRUXELLES

European Broadcasting Union/Union Européenne de Radio-Télévision M. Jacques BRIQUEMONT, Délégué aux organisations européennes, UER, Ancienne Route 17 A, Case postale 67, CH-1218 GRAND-SACONNEX/GENEVE; Mr Michael WAGNER, UER, Ancienne Route 17 A, Case postale 67, CH-1218 GRAND-SACONNEX/GENEVE

Nordic Council of Ministers/Conseil des Ministres Nordique Mr Martin TANGERAAS, Nordic Council of Ministers, St Strandstraede 18, DK-1255 COPENHAGEN

Item 19 of the agenda/Point 19 de l'ordre du jour: Mr Ismo SILVO, Executive Director, European Audiovisual Observatory, 76 Allée de la Robertsau, 67000 Strasbourg

SECRETARIAT Mr Hanno HARTIG, Head of Division II, Directorate of Human Rights/Chef de la Division II, Direction des Droits de l'Homme; Mr Christophe POIREL, Head of Media Section, Directorate of Human Rights/ Chef de la Section Media, Direction des Droits de l'Homme (Secretary to the Committee/Secrétaire du Comité); Mr Alfonso DE SALAS, Administrator, Media Section, Directorate of Human Rights/Administrateur, Section Media, Direction des Droits de l'Homme; Mr Ramon PRIETO SUAREZ, Administrator, Media Section, Directorate of Human Rights/Administrateur, Section Media, Direction des Droits de l'Homme; Ms Lindsay YOUNGS, Principal Administrative Assistant, Media Section, Directorate of Human Rights/Assistante Administrative principale, Section Media, Direction des Droits de l'Homme; Ms Christiane DENNEMEYER, Press Attaché, Press and Public Relation Service/Attachée de Presse, Service des Relations avec la Presse et le Public; M. Enrico MURATORE, Trainee, Media Section, Directorate of Human Rights/Stagiaire, Section Media, Direction des Droits de l'Homme; Ms Alexa ROUGIER, Trainee, Media Section, Directorate of Human Rights/Stagiaire, Section Media, Direction des Droits de l'Homme

Interpreters/interprètes

Ms Sylvie BOUX, Ms Anne CHENAIS, Mr Eoghan O'LOINGSIGH

    APPENDIX II

     Agenda

Item 1:    Opening of the meeting

Item 2:    Adoption of the agenda

Item 3:    5th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Greece, 1997)

        a.    Substantive preparation

        b.    Organisational arrangements

Item 4:    Group of Specialists on the impact of new communications technologies on human rights and democratic values (MM-S-NT)

Item 5:    Group of Specialists on the portrayal of violence in the media (MM-S-VL)

Item 6:    Group of Specialists on media and intolerance (MM-S-IN)

Item 7:    Committee of Experts on media concentrations and pluralism (MM-CM)

Item 8:    Group of Specialists on access to official information (MM-S-AC)

Item 9:    Group of Specialists on media in a pan-European perspective (MM-S-EP)

Item 10:    Group of Specialists on the protection of rights holders in the media sector (MM-S-PR)

        a.    Report of third meeting of the MM-S-PR

        b.    Preparation of a Seminar on the identification of works and rights holders in the digital era

Item 11:    Implementation of the draft 1997 Work Programme

Item 12:    Exchange of views on the overall work of the European Union in the media field

Item 13:    Round table discussion on developments in the media sector in Central and East European countries represented on the CDMM

Item 14:    MEDIALEX

Item 15:    Progress of work on recent technical and legal developments in the media field of interest to the CDMM

Item 16:    Dates of forthcoming meetings

Item 17:    Items to be included on the agenda of the 45th meeting of the CDMM

Item 18:    Elections

Item 19:    Other business

-    Council of Europe - European Cinema and Television Office Liaison Bureau

-    Exchange of views with the Executive Director of the European Audiovisual Observatory

-    Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television

-    Examination of a questionnaire on the follow-up to be given to the work of the Steering Committee for Equality between women and men (CDEG) concerning traffic in women and forced prostitution

    APPENDIX III

     Draft recommendation on the portrayal of violence in the electronic media

    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

    Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage;

    Recalling its commitment to the fundamental right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and to the principles of the free flow of information and ideas and the independence of media operators as expressed, in particular, in its Declaration on the freedom of expression and information of 29 April 1982;

    Bearing in mind the international dimension of the gratuitous portrayal of violence and the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (1989);

    Recalling that at the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, 7-8 December 1994), the Ministers responsible for media policy addressed to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe an Action plan containing strategies for the promotion of the media in a democratic society, in which they requested the Committee of Ministers to "prepare, in close consultation with media professionals and regulatory authorities, possible guidelines on the portrayal of violence in the media";

    Recalling that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities, which media professionals must bear in mind, and that it may legitimately be restricted in order to maintain a balance between the exercise of this right and the respect for other fundamental rights, freedoms and interests protected by the European Convention on Human Rights;

    Aware of the existence of different constitutional, legal and cultural traditions in the member States for ensuring the exercise of freedom of expression by media professionals, while stressing the evolution of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 10;

    Concerned at the overall increase in the portrayal of violence in the electronic media, which makes it an important social issue;

    Recalling that violence cannot be considered a proper means for conflict-resolution of any kind, including inter-personal conflicts ;

    Noting, nevertheless, that violence is part of the daily reality of society and that the right of the public to be informed also covers the right to be informed about various manifestations of violence;

    Noting that there are many ways in which violence may be portrayed by the media, corresponding to different contexts, ranging from information to entertainment and that, especially in the latter case, violence is sometimes trivialised or even glorified so as to attract large audiences;

    Noting also that, regardless of the aim invoked, violence is sometimes portrayed in the electronic media in a gratuitous manner, in no way justified by the context, reaching unacceptable inhuman and degrading levels as well as an excessive overall volume;

    Aware that this may impair the physical, mental or moral development of the public, particularly young people, by creating, for instance, insensitivity to suffering, feelings of insecurity and mistrust;

    Noting that not all persons in charge of the various electronic media perceive the increased portrayal of violence as a problem;

    Considering that the economic reasons advanced by certain persons in charge of electronic media cannot justify the gratuitous portrayal of violence;

    Convinced that the various sectors of society should assume their responsibilities in regard to the portrayal of violence in the electronic media;

    Convinced also that all electronic media professionals must assume their responsibilities and that they are best placed to address the question of gratuitous portrayal of violence; and welcoming efforts already made by certain professionals and sectors,

    Recommends that the governments of the member States:

a.    draw the attention of the professionals in the electronic media sector, the regulatory bodies for this sector, the educational authorities and the general public, to the overall policy framework represented by the appended guidelines;

b.    take concrete measures to implement these;

c.    ensure, by all appropriate means, that these guidelines are known by the persons and bodies concerned, and encourage general debate;

d.    keep the effective application of them in their internal legal orders under review.

    Instructs the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to transmit this recommendation to the governments of those States party to the European Cultural Convention which are not members of the Council of Europe.

     Scope

    This recommendation concerns the gratuitous portrayal of violence in the various electronic media at national and transfrontier level. The gratuitous nature is to be assessed with reference to the parameters contained in the appendix to this recommendation.

     Definitions

    For the purposes of this recommendation:

a.    "gratuitous portrayal of violence" denotes the dissemination of messages, words and images, the violent content or presentation of which is given a prominence which is not justified in the context;

b.    "electronic media" denotes radio and television programme services, services such as video-on-demand, Internet, interactive television, etc., and products such as video games, CD-ROM, etc. with the exception of private communications which are not accessible to the public;

c.    "those responsible for the content" denotes natural or legal persons responsible for the content of messages, words and images made available to the public by the various electronic media.

     Guidelines

Guideline No. 1 - General framework

    Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, must constitute the general legal framework for addressing questions concerning the portrayal of violence in the electronic media.

    Freedom of expression also includes, in principle, the right to impart and receive information and ideas which constitute portrayal of violence. However, certain forms of gratuitous portrayal of violence may lawfully be restricted, taking into account the duties and responsibilities which the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it, provided that such interferences with freedom of expression are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.

    More specifically, measures taken to counter gratuitous portrayal of violence in the electronic media may legitimately aim at upholding respect for human dignity and at the protection of vulnerable groups such as children and adolescents whose physical, mental or moral development may be impaired by exposure to such portrayal.

Guideline No. 2 - Responsibilities and means of action of non-State actors

Those responsible for the content

    Member States should recognise and take into account that it is first and foremost for those responsible for the content to assume the duties and responsibilities which the exercise of their freedom of expression entails, since they have primary responsibility for the content of the messages, words and images they disseminate. In particular, operators of electronic media have certain responsibilities when they decide to disseminate messages, words and images portraying violence, in view of the potentially harmful effects on the public, especially young people, as well as on society as a whole. These responsibilities have been assumed by media professionals in various ways, depending on the kind of electronic media, including by:

i.    ensuring, through appropriate means, that the public is made sufficiently aware in advance of messages, words and images of a violent content which they will make available;

ii.    the establishment of sectoral codes of conduct which specify the concrete responsibility of the professional sector concerned;

iii.    the establishment of internal guidelines, including standards for evaluating the content, in the various electronic media enterprises;

iv.    the establishment, at both sectoral level and within individual media enterprises, of appropriate consultation and control mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of self-regulatory standards;

v.    taking self-regulatory standards into account in contracts with other sectors, such as audio-visual producers, manufacturers of video games, advertising agencies, etc.;

vi.    regular contacts and exchange of information with national regulatory authorities, as well as with self-regulatory authorities, in other countries.

The various sectors of society

    Member States should recognise and take into account the various sectors of society have responsibilities in their own field of activity. They may assume their responsibilities in various ways, including by approaching those responsible for the content, in particular by awareness-raising campaigns; by promoting and providing media education; by promoting or undertaking research on the portrayal of violence, etc.

    As regards access to and the use of electronic media by children and adolescents at home and at school, as well as with respect to their understanding of violent messages, words and images transmitted by these media, parents and teachers have a special responsibility. They may assume this responsibility in various ways, including by:

i.    developing and maintaining a critical attitude towards the gratuitous portrayal of violence;

ii.    using the electronic media in a conscious and selective manner, as well as by demanding quality products and services;

iii.    stimulating children and adolescents to develop a critical attitude, eg through media education within the family and in schools;

iv.    examining ways of restricting access of children and adolescents to the violence portrayed in the electronic media where this is likely to impair the latter's physical, mental or moral development.

Guideline No. 3 - Responsibilities and means of action of member States

    Member States bear general responsibility for, inter alia, the well-being of their population, for protecting human rights and for upholding respect for human dignity. However, as concerns the gratuitous portrayal of violence in the electronic media, member States only bear subsidiary responsibility, since the primary responsibility lies with those responsible for the content.

National media policy

    Member States should adopt a global approach which is not limited to those responsible for the content but addresses the professional and social sectors concerned as a whole. This approach should, where appropriate, aim to:

i.    promote the establishment ofindependent regulatory authorities for the various electronic media. These authorities should be endowed with appropriate competence and means for regulating the portrayal of violence at national level;

ii.    enable electronic media consumers, both national and foreign, who criticise the violent content of certain services or products, to lodge a complaint with the regulatory authority or another competent national body;

iii.    include among the licensing conditions for broadcasters certain obligations concerning the portrayal of violence, accompanied by dissuasive measures of an administrative nature, such as non-renewal of the licence when these obligations are not respected;

iv.    establish methods to facilitate the division of responsibilities between those responsible for the content and the public (warnings, "watershed");

v.    raise the electronic media professionals' awareness of the problems connected with the gratuitous portrayal of violence and the public's concern about them;

vi.    promote research on the portrayal of violence in the electronic media, in particular on trends in the various media, and studies of the effects of such portrayal on the public.

International co-operation

    In addition to their existing international obligations and activities carried out within the framework of the Council of Europe, member States should co-operate bilaterally and multilaterally as well as within the framework of competent international organisations, with a view to developing policies for addressing problems related, in particular, to the international dimension of the gratuitous portrayal of violence in the electronic media.

    In this respect, they should facilitate the exchange of information and co-operation between competent regulatory authorities, in particular as concerns content classification and the handling of any complaints lodged from abroad.

Legal measures

    Where those responsible for the content engage in the gratuitous portrayal of violence which grossly offends human dignity or which, on account of its inhuman or degrading nature, impairs the physical, mental or moral development of the public, particularly young people, member States should effectively apply relevant civil, criminal or administrative sanctions.

    Member States which are not yet Party to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (1989) are invited to accede to this instrument. All States Parties to the Convention should ensure its effective implementation, in particular as concerns the provisions dealing with the portrayal of violence, and regularly evaluate its effectiveness. Member States are also invited to give an appropriate follow-up to Recommendation No. R (89) 7 of the Committee of Ministers on principles on the distribution of videograms having a violent, brutal or pornographic content.

Promotion of non-violent quality programmes, services and products

    Within the framework in particular of the various national and European programmes of support for the production and distribution of audio-visual works, and in close co-operation with European bodies and professional circles concerned, member States should promote the principle of non-violent quality programmes, services and products which reflect the cultural diversity and richness of European countries.

Guideline No. 4 - Shared responsibility for electronic media education

    States should consider electronic media education as a responsibility shared between themselves, those responsible for the content and the various sectors of society. Such education constitutes a particularly appropriate way of helping the public, especially the young, to develop a critical attitude in regard to different forms of portrayal of violence in these media and to make informed choices.

    Appendix to the Recommendation

     Parameters to be taken into account for determining whether

    the portrayal of violence in electronic media is justified/unjustified

    When assessing specific cases of portrayal of violence in the electronic media, different views may exist as to whether this portrayal is justified/unjustified. This variety of approaches depends in particular on the different responsibilities of the persons or institutions who make the assessment (broadcasters, parents, advertisers, self-regulatory bodies, regulatory authorities, courts, etc.). This diversity will also appear in the application of the parameters set out below.

    Without claiming to be exhaustive, this table brings together a number of elements (for example, the type of programme - a documentary/a children's programme - the viewing time, the possibility of free access or conditional access, etc) which should be borne in mind in order to determine whether, in a given case, the portrayal of violence in the electronic media is justified by the context. Thus, the portrayal of true images of a massacre could be justified in the context of a televised information programme but not in the context of an interactive video game, etc.

     Draft explanatory memorandum to the

    draft recommendation on the portrayal of violence in the electronic media

Why a recommendation?

1.     The Prague Ministerial Conference referred to in the preamble highlighted the need for Council of Europe action against the portrayal of violence in the electronic media. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted this recommendation by way of response. The recommendation seeks to give a concrete response to public concern about the disproportionate portrayal of violence in the media, without, however, interfering with the autonomy and editorial independence of media professionals.

Current situation

2.     The portrayal of violence in the electronic media has become an important social issue. There is a generalised increase in the use of violent elements in audio-visual messages, both in fiction and news programmes, as well as in the new media. One of the reasons for this increase is the fact that violence is a universal language which does not vary much in content or expression and which promises immediate access to strong sensations. However, the cumulative volume of the portrayal of violence may reach unacceptable proportions. The media, especially television, reflect culture and civilisation and offer models of social behaviour. The impact of the portrayal of violence may be felt at the level of one's attitude, perception of the world, and value system. The effect may be a completely distorted perception of reality, a weakening of one's faculties for empathy, or mounting indifference to violence sustained by others.

3.     The preamble recalls the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights See footnote 1 , and to the principles of the free circulation of information and ideas and the independence of media professionals.

4.    The preamble recalls that violence in all its different forms is part of daily life and that the public has a right to be informed and to form its own opinion. Media professionals, rightly so, invoke the public's right to information - as well as other legitimate aims such as awareness raising, education, culture, or entertainment - when they portray violence. However, it must be recognised that violence is sometimes trivialised, even glorified, simply to attract a vast public. Such is the case, for example, with certain programme services of the genre "information-spectacle" ("tele-truth", "reality shows", "infotainment", etc). For this reason, it is clear therefore that the aforementioned legitimate aims cannot be invoked when the violent content made available to the public cannot in any way be justified by the context, reaching unacceptable inhuman or degrading levels or being needlessly introduced or prolonged.

5.    The increase in the portrayal of violence is not seen to be a problem by all those responsible for the electronic media. Certain persons responsible for the content disseminated by the media even point to economic reasons to justify their policy. Gratuitous portrayal of violence brings in money. They also claim that in the final analysis, the media portray violence because large sections of the public like to watch violent programmes and are even prepared to pay to do so.

Aim of the recommendation

6.    The recommendation is intended to remind governments of the limited possibilities which they have to interfere with the freedom of expression of the electronic media. The recommendation clearly indicates that those responsible for the electronic media are in the best position to deal with the issue of the gratuitous portrayal of violence. In this respect, the Committee of Ministers pays tribute to the great efforts already deployed by certain professionals in certain sectors.

7.    The recommendation thus lays emphasis on the primary responsibility of media professionals and on the importance of education for the public. On the other hand, no reference is made to technical devices such as "the electronic chip" which make it possible to limit the portrayal of violence. It was felt that even if technical control mechanisms such as the electronic chip were a complementary tool, they nevertheless had two major drawbacks:

-    on the one hand, for systems such as the "electronic chip" to be effective, a European harmonisation of classification criteria for violent elements, for example in television broadcasts, would be required. However, such harmonisation is deemed not feasible for both technical and cultural reasons See footnote 2 .

-    on the other hand, the electronic chip may have counterproductive effects for users: some broadcasters might consider it an authorisation to programme even more violent elements, relying on technical means for protecting users against such elements. However, the effectiveness of such means remains to be proven (for example, it is not uncommon that children know how to operate them better than do their parents) and, in any case, it is unfair to shift all responsibility onto parents or users.

8.     The preceding reflections concern not only television. It is clear, however, that television remains the most important of all the electronic media, and this explains why all broadcasters assume a particular responsibility.

9.    The recommendation is also intended to make the public, and especially youth, aware of their own responsibilities. Confronted with the violence disseminated through the media, the public must show its own powers of discernment, a factor which requires a certain level of media education. The recommendation thus highlights the various features of media education by referring not only to the role of schools but also to that of parents (see also Guideline No. 2).

     Definitions

10.    Several key notions are defined at the outset, it being understood that these definitions only apply for the purposes of this recommendation. The Group of Specialists responsible for the drafting of the recommendation had lengthy discussions on the desirability of producing a general definition of the notion of violence. It was felt, however, that the diversity of the moral, cultural, social, etc., traditions in the 39 member States of the Council of Europe appeared to exclude the possibility to reach any universal definition of "violence". Bearing in mind the principle of "infringement of human dignity", the Group retained, for the purposes of this recommendation, the notion of "gratuitous portrayal of violence".

a.    "Gratuitous portrayal of violence"

11.    The gratuitous aspect is one of the essential elements to pinpoint. The content of this notion will depend greatly on the various types of responsibilities of persons or institutes examining it (media professionals, parents, advertisers, self-regulatory bodies, regulatory authorities, courts, etc). In order to decide in any particular case the justified/unjustified character of violence portrayal in the electronic media, it was felt that a two-fold approach needed to be borne in mind: a quantitative analysis and a qualitative analysis.

12.    From the quantitative point of view, the frequency with which violence is portrayed is one criterion to be taken into consideration. The approach will not necessarily be the same, depending on whether an isolated portrayal of violence is involved, or violent content frequently inserted in an electronic media, or electronic media with clearly violent content (for example, a television channel devoted to violent films or violent video games) or the cumulative effect of the violent elements made available in the electronic media of a particular country.

13.    From the qualitative point of view, it is important to recall that the same violent message, word or image may have a different impact depending on whether it is situated in the context of news and information or entertainment, fictional or real, and depending on the intellectual, cultural, social and educational background. It is also necessary to consider the means of delivery - free to air, encrypted, subscription - and the nature of the particular media - generalist, thematic, etc.

b.    "Electronic media"

14.    The recommendation applies to all electronic media which are accessible to the public whether offline such as radio and television programmes, videos, video games, CD-Rom etc, or online, such as video-on-demand, Internet, teletext, etc.

15.    The decisive criterion is the possibility of the public to have access to these programmes, services and products. Thus, the following are considered to be electronic media for the purposes of the recommendation: a communication on the Internet which any user may access, a CD-Rom or a video which the public can obtain, radio or television programme, etc. Private communications which are not accessible to the public are not considered to be "media" under the recommendation. The use of the term "private communications" in the definition of electronic media shall not, however, be understood as including communications between individuals for professional purposes.

c.    "Those responsible for the content"

16.    Those responsible for violent content available on the electronic media may be individuals (for example, a person who disseminates messages on Internet which incite others to commit a massacre) or legal persons (for example, a television company, an audio-visual production company, a video games producer, an advertising agency, etc).

17.    A number of national laws prescribe that the author of the violent message is not the responsible person, rather responsibility is ascribed to the person who authorised the dissemination of the message in the medium. If during a television interview, for example, an individual incites others to commit a massacre, legal action will be taken against the person responsible for the channel having broadcast the violent remarks. Other laws have a different approach.

     Guidelines

1.    General framework

18.    Guideline No. 1 is intended to recall that any measure addressing the gratuitous portrayal of violence must comply with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In principle, freedom of expression also includes the right to communicate and receive information and ideas which constitute the representation of violence. However, in conformity with Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention, certain forms of gratuitous portrayal of violence may be

lawfully made subject to restrictions, given the duties and responsibilities which the exercise of freedom of expression entails. There is of course a proviso: any such measures of interference with freedom of expression must be prescribed by law and be necessary in a democratic society in order to satisfy one of the legitimate aims mentioned in paragraph 2.

19.     As regards the portrayal of violence in the electronic media, one or several of the following aims may be relevant and may form a legitimate basis for limiting the freedom to communicate or to receive information and ideas:

-    the protection of health or morals;

-    the protection of the rights of others;

-    the prevention of disorder or crime.

20.     The recommendation thus draws attention to the fact that in certain cases restrictions imposed on the gratuitous portrayal of violence may have the lawful aim of guaranteeing respect of certain fundamental rights and freedoms, especially respect for human dignity and the protection of vulnerable groups, including children and young people.

21.    Specialists are divided on whether the portrayal of violence has a direct or indirect influence on behaviour or attitude, especially of children and young people. Some experts consider that the accumulation of images of violence may influence behaviour, especially the behaviour of young people. Others feel that no link between the portrayal of violence on the screen and violent behaviour has been established. Without taking up these discussions the Council of Europe is of the opinion that the gratuitous portrayal of violence may have prejudicial effects on the physical, psychological or moral development of members of the public, especially youth. This being said, it should be noted that any measure directed against the gratuitous portrayal of violence in the electronic media must fulfil a pressing social need, be proportionate to the aim pursued, be based on relevant and sufficient reasons, have a legal basis which satisfies the requirements of foreseeability and accessibility and offers sufficient guarantees against abuse and arbitrary interference.

2.    Responsibilities and means of action of non-State actors

22.    The recommendation makes a distinction between the role of the State and the role of non-State actors, namely those responsible for content as well as the various sectors of society concerned by the problem of the portrayal of violence. Guideline No. 2 addresses the non-State actors and first and foremost those responsible for the content.

Those responsible for the content

23.    Guideline No. 2 is intended to underscore that primary responsibility in this area falls to media professionals, who must find appropriate ways of dealing with the problem of the portrayal of violence in the media. This guideline gives examples of actions taken or being planned by the professionals themselves. For example, many of those responsible for content ensure that the public is informed about the violent nature of the content which they will make available. With this in mind, they draw up for themselves standards for assessing the degree of violence and warn the public on that basis. Techniques for warning the public can ary: reminders in programme trailers, sound and visual warnings (for example, symbols indicating the level of violence (two squares, three diamonds, etc), programme schedules

references on the covers of video cassettes, CD-ROM, etc. See footnote 3 . As regards certain programmes, for example reality shows, certain television companies warn the public that the events shown are only a reconstitution of real occurrences. In addition, a "watershed", a time in the day after which the audience can expect violent content, may be utilised.

The various sectors of society

24.    The gratuitous or excessive portrayal of violence is a problem which should be tackled by the electronic media, but also by the various sectors of society, including parents and teachers, through concerted action and on a voluntary basis. It is only by raising the level of awareness of all circles concerned that a proper balance can be found between the right to information and the respect of other rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. In this respect, the authorities of certain member States place particular emphasis on the responsibility of parents, teachers, political parties, family associations, viewers' associations, non-governmental organisations - in particular organisations for the protection of the rights of the child, women's rights and minority rights - religious institutions and groups, research and educational institutes, etc. In this context, it is felt particularly necessary to concentrate efforts to provide education in audio-visual language to children (see also Guideline No. 4).

3.    Responsibilities and means of action of member States

25.    Guideline No. 3 is intended to point out that the member States cannot abandon their general responsibility at national and international levels for the well being of their public. This does not mean, however, that the implementation of this responsibility entitles them to interfere arbitrarily with the independence of the electronic media. The independent media are first and foremost responsible in this area and States have only a subsidiary responsibility. This finds expression in national policies and national cooperation on the media, in legal measures, support (financial or other), the production of non violent quality works as well as the promotion of electronic media education in schools. This last strategy is often implemented in cooperation with the social sectors concerned (see also Guideline No. 4).

International co-operation

26.    Some member States are already obliged to respect a number of international commitments (community law, European Convention on Transfrontier Television, etc). In addition to these obligations, co-operation is recommended, including within structures other than the Council of Europe, in order to facilitate the evolution of national classification systems (so as to seek, as far as possible, an understanding of the various perceptions as

concerns "justified/unjustified" portrayal) and the handling of complaints lodged from abroad See footnote 4 .

Legal measures

27.    Member States must apply effectively their laws, regulations, etc so as to combat serious offences in the area of violence portrayal. They have already taken binding and non-binding legal measures at the international level, for example, the European Convention on Transfrontier Television See footnote 5 , or the Recommendation No. R (89) 7 of the Committee of Ministers on principles on the distribution of videograms having a violent, brutal or pornographic content.

Promotion of non-violent quality services and products

28.     Member States should develop a constructive approach to improving the quality of the electronic media without, however, necessarily engaging their financial responsibility. It should not be forgotten that the gratuitous portrayal of violence is sometimes a response to financial constraints, since certain types of violent programme services can be less costly than non-violent ones. The member States should therefore encourage by appropriate means the production and broadcasting of non-violent, quality programmes.

4.    Shared responsibilities for electronic media education

29.    Electronic media education should also be seen as the shared responsibility of the sectors concerned by the problem of the gratuitous portrayal of violence in the media See footnote 6 . There can be no effective education strategy in the absence of appropriate learning materials (including via the electronic media) and qualified educators. Education needs to be addressed first and foremost although not exclusively for young people. School is seen as an appropriate forum, although it is not the only one. The electronic media can make a very useful contribution to the education of users.

30.    The recommendation stresses the need to promote education via the various electronic media. The phenomenon of leaving children alone in front of the television set (the electronic babysitter) is by no means a rare occurrence. Education would thus help the public, especially young people, to develop critical attitudes and to exercise reasoned choices in the face of the increasing multiplication of services offered by the electronic media. Education should also draw the attention of the public to the possibilities offered by the electronic media for building less violent societies. Furthermore, media education can contribute to the basic and ongoing training of electronic media professionals as well as professionals from other interested sectors by making them aware of their responsibilities with respect to the gratuitous portrayal of violence.

31.    Another important contribution could be the basic and ongoing training of professionals working for the electronic media and other interested sectors. Training could be given under the direction of media enterprises either in-house or in the framework of external training courses.

32.    Consideration should also be given to the possibility of introducing classification systems to help parents and educators to exercise their responsibility. These systems could, for example, be set up by self-regulatory bodies or by national regulatory authorities, taking due account of the different national legal traditions and in co-operation with the various interested sectors.

33.    Finally, the Council of Europe is now examining the possibility of launching an action plan on, inter alia, electronic media education. This area is of general interest to the Council of Europe and requires proper co-ordination between the various intergovernmental sectors concerned.

    APPENDIX IV

     Draft recommendation on "hate speech"

    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

    Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members, particularly for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage;

    Recalling the Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of the member States of the Council of Europe, adopted in Vienna on 9 October 1993;

    Recalling that the Vienna Declaration highlighted grave concern about the present resurgence of racism, xenophobia and antisemitism and the development of a climate of intolerance, and contained an undertaking to combat all ideologies, policies and practices constituting an incitement to racial hatred, violence and discrimination, as well as any action or language likely to strengthen fears and tensions between groups from different racial, ethnic, national, religious or social backgrounds;

    Reaffirming its profound attachment to freedom of expression and information as expressed in the Declaration on the Freedom of Expression and Information of 29 April 1982;

    Condemning, in line with the Vienna Declaration and the Declaration on Media in a Democratic Society, adopted at the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, 7-8 December 1994), all forms of expression which incite to racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism and all forms of intolerance, since they undermine democratic security, cultural cohesion and pluralism;

    Noting that such forms of expression may have a greater and more damaging impact when disseminated through the media;

    Believing that the need to combat such forms of expression is even more urgent in situations of tension and in times of war and other forms of armed conflict;

    Believing that it is necessary to lay down guidelines for the governments of the member States on how to address these forms of expression, while recognising that most media cannot be blamed for such forms of expression;

    Bearing in mind Article 7, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television and the case-law of the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights under Articles 10 and 17 of the latter Convention;

    Having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Resolution (68) 30 of the Committee of Ministers on Measures to be taken against incitement to racial, national and religious hatred;

    Noting that not all member States have signed and ratified this Convention and implemented it by means of national legislation;

    Aware of the need to reconcile the fight against racism and intolerance with the need to protect freedom of expression so as to avoid the risk of undermining democracy on the grounds of defending it;

    Aware also of the need to respect fully the editorial independence and autonomy of the media;

Recommends that the governments of member States:

1.    take appropriate steps to combat hate speech on the basis of the principles laid down in this recommendation;

2.    ensure that such steps form part of a comprehensive approach to the phenomenon, which also targets its social, economic, political, cultural and other root causes;

3.    where they have not done so, sign, ratify and effectively implement in national law the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in accordance with Resolution (68) 30 of the Committee of Ministers on Measures to be taken against incitement to racial, national and religious hatred;

4.    review their domestic legislation and practice in order to ensure that they comply with the principles set out in the appendix to this recommendation.

    Appendix to the draft recommendation on "hate speech"

    Scope

    The principles set out hereafter apply to hate speech, in particular hate speech disseminated through the media.

    For the purposes of the application of these principles, the term "hate speech" shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.

     Principle 1

    The governments of the member States, public authorities and public institutions at the national, regional and local levels, as well as officials, have a special responsibility to refrain from statements, in particular to the media, which may reasonably be understood as hate speech, or as speech likely to produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism or other forms of discrimination or hatred based on intolerance. Such statements should be prohibited and publicly disavowed whenever they occur.

     Principle 2

    The governments of the member States should establish or maintain a sound legal framework consisting of civil, criminal and administrative law provisions on hate speech which enable administrative and judicial authorities to reconcile in each case respect for freedom of expression with respect for human dignity and the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.

    To this end, governments of member States should examine ways and means to:

-    stimulate and co-ordinate research on the effectiveness of existing legislation and legal practice;

-    review the existing legal framework in order to ensure that it applies in an adequate manner to the various new media and communications services and networks;

-    develop a co-ordinated prosecution policy based on national guidelines respecting the principles set out in this recommendation;

-    add community service orders to the range of possible penal sanctions;

-    enhance the possibilities to combat hate speech through civil law, for example by allowing interested non-governmental organisations to bring civil law actions, providing for compensation for victims of hate speech and providing for the possibility of court orders allowing victims a right of reply or ordering retraction;

-    provide the public and media professionals with information on legal provisions which apply to hate speech.

     Principle 3

    The governments of the member States should ensure that in the legal framework referred to in Principle 2 interferences with freedom of expression are narrowly circumscribed and applied in a lawful and non-arbitrary manner on the basis of objective criteria. Moreover, in accordance with the fundamental requirement of the rule of law, any limitation of or interference with freedom of expression must be subject to independent judicial control. This requirement is particularly important in cases where freedom of expression must be reconciled with respect for human dignity and the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.

     Principle 4

    National law and practice should allow the courts to bear in mind that specific instances of hate speech may be so insulting to individuals or groups as not to enjoy the level of protection afforded by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to other forms of expression. This is the case where hate speech is aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms laid down in the Convention or at their limitation to a greater extent than provided therein.

     Principle 5

    National law and practice should allow the competent prosecution authorities to give special attention, as far as their discretion permits, to cases involving hate speech. In this regard, these authorities should, in particular, give careful consideration to the suspect's right to freedom of expression given that the imposition of criminal sanctions generally constitutes a serious interference with that freedom. The competent courts should, when imposing criminal sanctions on persons convicted of hate speech offences, ensure strict respect for the principle of proportionality.

     Principle 6

    National law and practice in the area of hate speech should take due account of the role of the media in communicating information and ideas which expose, analyse and explain specific instances of hate speech and the underlying phenomenon in general as well as the right of the public to receive such information and ideas.

    To this end, national law and practice should distinguish clearly between the responsibility of the author of expressions of hate speech on the one hand and any responsibility of the media and media professionals contributing to their dissemination as part of their mission to communicate information and ideas on matters of public interest on the other hand.

     Principle 7

    In furtherance of principle 6, national law and practice should take account of the fact that:

-    reporting on racism, xenophobia, antisemitism or other forms of intolerance is fully protected by Article 10, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights and may only be interfered with under the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of that provision;

-    the standards applied by national authorities for assessing the necessity of restricting freedom of expression must be in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 as established in the case law of the Convention's organs, having regard, inter alia, to the manner, contents, context and purpose of the reporting;

-    respect for journalistic freedoms also implies that it is not for the courts or the public authorities to impose their views on the media as to the types of reporting techniques to be adopted by journalists.

     Draft explanatory memorandum

    to the draft recommendation on "hate speech"

Introduction

    This recommendation, along with Recommendation No. R (97) .. on the media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance, is one of the concrete results of the Council of Europe's intergovernmental work in the media sector in the years 1995-1996.

    Tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings are the very basis of a democratic and pluralist society. This explains why the Council of Europe has always attached the greatest importance to safeguarding and realising these ideals and principles.

    At the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe member States, held in Vienna from 8-9 October 1993, alarm was expressed over the resurgence of racism, xenophobia and antisemitism, the development of a climate of intolerance, the increase in acts of violence, notably against migrants and people of immigrant origin, and the development of new expressions of xenophobia in the form of aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism. The Heads of State and Government expressed their conviction that these manifestations of intolerance threatened democratic societies and their fundamental values.

    At the Vienna Summit, a Plan of Action on combating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance was adopted. The Plan of Action set out a broad range of measures to mobilise the public and improve and effectively implement guarantees and policies aimed at combating these phenomena. One of the various sectors covered by the Plan of Action was the media sector. In paragraph 5 of the Plan, the media professions were requested "to report and comment on acts of racism and intolerance factually and responsibly, and to continue to develop professional codes of ethics which reflect these requirements".

    The relevance of the media to the fight against racism and intolerance was also stressed in Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1277 (1995) on migrants, ethnic minorities and media. Paragraph 2 of this recommendation states: "Media presentation of subjects connected with immigrants and ethnic minorities has a significant impact on public opinion. Although the media constitute an important means of combating racist and xenophobic views, prejudices and preconceived ideas, they can also have a role in the emergence or strengthening of such views".

    In a Message to Steering Committees and ad hoc Committees on the fight against racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance (January 1994), the Committee of Ministers invited these Committees to take account, when discharging their terms of reference, of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Plan of Action and, accordingly, to step up or adjust their current activities in the areas mentioned or to propose new activities.

    At the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, 7-8 December 1994), the Ministers of the participating States condemned, in their Declaration on media in a democratic society, all forms of expression which incite to racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism and all forms of intolerance, since they undermined democratic security, cultural cohesion and pluralism. Furthermore, the Prague Action Plan setting out strategies for the promotion of media in a democratic society which the Ministers addressed to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, requested the latter to "study, in close consultation with media professionals and regulatory authorities, possible guidelines which could assist media professionals in addressing intolerance in all its forms" (item 6 of the Action Plan).

    Subsequently, the Steering Committee on the Mass Media (CDMM) instructed a Group of Specialists on media and intolerance (MM-S-IN) to examine, inter alia, the role which the media may play in propagating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance, as well as the contribution they may make to combating these phenomena.

    In analysing these issues, the MM-S-IN took into account existing provisions in international legal instruments (in particular the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the organs of the latter Convention) as well as in the legislation of the member States of the Council of Europe. As regards the latter, the MM-S-IN's work benefited greatly from a study prepared under the auspices of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (Legal measures to combat racism and intolerance in the member States of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2 March 1995, document CRI (95) 2).

    In addition, the MM-S-IN commissioned a comparative study on codes of ethics dealing with media and intolerance from the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication of the University of Tampere in Finland (document MM-S-IN (95) 21; also published as: Kolehmainen/Pietiläinen, Comparative Study on Codes of Ethics Dealing with Media and Intolerance, in: Kaarle Nordenstreng (ed.), Reports on Media Ethics in Europe, University of Tampere Series B 41, 1995).

    In the course of its work, the MM-S-IN reached the conclusion that it would not be advisable to prepare legally binding instruments on the question of media and intolerance in addition to the current international legal framework (the most relevant components of which are referred to in the preamble to this recommendation). Given the special situation of the media and the crucial importance of media freedom and the principles of editorial independence and autonomy, it was considered both preferable and more effective to concentrate on non-binding legal instruments containing, for example, principles which the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe could recommend to governments of member States as a basis for their legislative and other measures or policies in this field.

    Furthermore, the MM-S-IN felt that, in carrying out its work, it was crucial to distinguish between: (1) the role which the media may play in propagating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance, and (2) the contribution which the media may make to combating these phenomena. This distinction was considered necessary since the scope and justification for imposing legally binding measures differ greatly for each of these two areas. As concerns the propagation of racism and intolerance there is, in principle, scope for imposing legally binding standards without violating freedom of expression and the principle of editorial independence. However, as concerns the promotion of a positive contribution by the media, great care needs to be taken so as not to interfere with these principles. This area calls for measures of encouragement rather than legal measures.

    For this reason, the MM-S-IN and the CDMM decided to prepare two distinct recommendations: the present one on "hate speech" and another on the media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance (see Recommendation No. R (97) ..).

    At different stages of the drafting of these recommendations, the MM-S-IN consulted various representative organisations in the media sector as well as interested non- governmental organisations so as to obtain their comments on the texts under preparation. These comments had a substantial bearing on the content of the two instruments.

    The draft text of the present recommendation was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers which, at the ..th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies on ...., adopted the recommendation and authorised publication of the explanatory memorandum.

Operative part of the recommendation

    Paragraphs 1 and 2 reflect an awareness that, although steps should be taken to combat hate speech through legal measures (see paragraph 12 above), legal measures alone will not be sufficient to combat this evil having regard to the need for a global approach and to the limits which the freedom of expression and editorial independence place on state action. The ultimate goal of national measures against hate speech should be the eradication of racism and other forms of intolerance from society. This cannot be achieved by merely focusing on hate speech. In this respect, hate speech may be considered as only one type of manifestation of intolerance amongst others (for example, racially motivated crime, discriminatory practices, etc.). Furthermore, these are manifestations of a phenomenon (intolerance) which has deeper roots and is linked to a variety of social, economic, cultural, historical and other factors. This does not mean that measures against hate speech can be dispensed with, but it illustrates the need to integrate such measures into a more comprehensive policy approach which incorporates not only legal measures, but also policy measures - for example in the field of education and awareness-raising, culture, social policy, research, etc.

    Paragraph 3 recommends that those governments of member States which have not yet done so, sign, ratify (or accede to) and implement effectively the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In fact, a number of member States of the Council of Europe are not yet Party to this Convention.

    The CERD contains several provisions which are directly relevant to racist speech and incitement to racial hatred. In particular, Article 4 inter alia obliges the States Parties to "declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof". This obligation is, however, qualified in that States Parties should have "due regard" to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of the CERD. The fundamental right to freedom of expression is one of these rights, which is also recognised in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration.

    The need to reconcile the fight against racism and intolerance with the need to protect other fundamental rights was also stressed in Resolution (68) 30 of the Committee of Ministers on measures to be taken against incitement to racial, national and religious hatred, to which reference is made in paragraph 3 of the recommendation. More explicitly, the European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment in the case of Jersild v. Denmark of 23 September 1994 (Series A vol. 298, paragraph 30), considered that the respondent's obligations under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) must be interpreted, as far as possible, so as to be reconcilable with its obligations under the CERD.

Appendix to the recommendation

Scope

    This section defines, for the purposes of this recommendation, the term "hate speech". It also makes clear that this recommendation applies to hate speech generally. However, a number of the principles which follow deal more particularly with hate speech disseminated through the media (cf. principles 1, 6 and 7). It should be stressed that the recommendation does not seek to create special legal obligations for the media.

    The reason for putting a degree of emphasis on hate speech disseminated via the media as opposed to other types of expression is not that the media are particularly guilty on this point. In fact, as stated in the preamble, most media cannot be accused of disseminating such forms of expression although training initiatives for media professionals are useful so as to avoid involuntary expressions of intolerance. Rather, the principles dealing more particularly with expressions of hate speech through the media reflect the awareness that messages of hate, when transmitted through the media, may be amplified and engender greater harm given the impact of the media on public opinion, which is much greater than that of other, individual, forms of expression (cf. principle 1). In this respect, it can be said that local or smaller media with a low degree of professionalism more frequently transmit intolerant messages. The potential harm occasioned by messages of hate in the media is perhaps greatest in situations of tension or even (armed) conflict. This is why the preamble stresses the urgent need to combat these forms of expression in such situations. In addition, and equally

importantly, the principles aim to protect media freedom, especially as far as reporting on racism and other forms of intolerance is concerned (cf. principles 6 and 7).

    The notion of intolerance, in principle, covers a very wide range of attitudes and opinions relating to a wide range of grounds on which human beings may be distinguished or indeed discriminated against. However, it has to be borne in mind that this recommendation must be understood against the background of the aforementioned Vienna Declaration. The Declaration on combating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance provides some useful pointers in this regard. These were taken up in the definition of hate speech contained in this section. It was considered necessary to avoid losing the focus of the text by covering all forms of intolerance (e.g. intolerance on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, age, handicap, etc.). It might also be noted that, as far as the media are concerned, intolerance specifically on grounds of sex has been addressed in Recommendation No. R (84) 17 on equality between women and men in the media, which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 September 1984.

    Finally, the recommendation contains many safeguards aimed at protecting freedom of expression, which may create the impression that the main aim of this text is not to fight hate speech or to help eradicate racism and intolerance, but rather to promote freedom of expression. However, as is made clear in the preamble, both fighting racism and intolerance and protecting freedom of expression are essential in a democratic society and it would be unacceptable to give, in a general fashion, precedence to either one at the expense of the other. Furthermore, the argument that too draconian a protection against intolerant speech might not only be dangerous but also counterproductive, also carries weight. The recommendation aims at providing elements which can help strike a proper balance, both by the legislature and by the administrative authorities as well as the courts in the member States.

Principles

    Principle 1 reflects the special responsibility of public authorities and institutions at all levels of the State to refrain from expressions in oral or written statements or otherwise, in particular to the media, which may legitimise, spread or promote racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism or other forms of discrimination or hatred based on intolerance. It is first and foremost the duty of the State itself to ensure that its organs and officials do not contribute to the spread of hatred. Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 4, paragraph c, of the CERD contain explicit legal obligations in this regard.

    Although this principle may seem self-evident, there have been recent examples in European countries which, unfortunately, show that the dangers of violation of this principle remain.

    The text is silent as to the nature of the sanctions which should be available and applied in cases of violation of this principle. Reference is made to Principles 2 and 5. In this particular case, disciplinary sanctions may be appropriate, either alone or in combination with other sanctions. As public officials are entitled to the full protection of their freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 ECHR, any interferences with this freedom must be in conformity with the requirements set out in Article 10, paragraph 2, ECHR. Principles 2 to 5 give further guidance on the matter.

    Principle 2 stresses the need, in fighting racism and intolerance in concrete cases, to reconcile freedom of expression with the respect for human dignity and the protection of the reputation or the rights of others. Article 10 ECHR provides the basic framework for this. The relevant case-law of the organs of the Convention shows that the question of whether, in a given case, a restriction on freedom of expression is "necessary in a democratic society" can only be answered with reference to all the concrete circumstances of the case in question. Although such determinations cannot be made in the abstract, it is incumbent on the national legislature to ensure that an appropriate legal framework exists which enables domestic courts and administrative authorities to assess, with due regard to all the circumstances of each case, the "necessity" of interfering with freedom of expression and the proportionality between the "formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties" which are being considered or have been imposed on the one hand, and the legitimate aim pursued on the other. Principles 4 and 7 provide further guidance on the factors which should be taken into account when assessing the necessity of such interferences.

    While national law should therefore leave sufficient room for balancing freedom of expression and the protection of other rights, it should not give unlimited discretion to authorities called upon to apply the law. This would run counter to the principle of legal certainty and, more specifically, the requirement laid down in Article 10, paragraph 2, ECHR that restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression be "prescribed by law". This means, inter alia, that the restriction must have a basis in national law, that the law must be sufficiently accessible and be formulated in clear and precise terms ("foreseeability"). The commentary on Principle 4 provides additional information in this respect. These requirements take on a special significance where restrictions on freedom of expression by the media are concerned since the media should not be discouraged, for fear of criminal or other sanctions, from imparting information and opinions on issues of public concern. Possibilities for restricting freedom of expression which are couched in vague or broad terms may easily produce a chilling effect on media freedom.

    These considerations are all the more important where criminal sanctions may be imposed in light of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle as well as the principle that the criminal law must not be extensively construed to an accused's detriment, for instance by analogy. These principles form part of the guarantee of Article 7 ECHR and it thus follows that an offence must be clearly defined in law (see for example European Court of Human Rights, S.W. v. United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A No. 335-B, paras. 34-36).

    Principle 2 expressly mentions the respect for human dignity and the protection of the reputation or the rights of others as legitimate aims for restricting freedom of expression in the area of hate speech. This is in line with the above-mentioned Jersild judgment. The "rights of others" include the right to physical and psychological integrity of the individual. However, such restrictions may, in special cases, also pursue other aims which Article 10, paragraph 2, ECHR recognises as legitimate. The case-law of the European Commission on Human Rights shows that, depending on the facts of the case, the prevention of disorder or crime may also be of relevance.

    Principle 2 also enumerates measures which are recommended for examination by governments of member States. Most of these are self-explanatory.

    The measure indicated in the second indent is a response to recent examples in several member States which, unfortunately, have shown that hate messages may also be carried by the new media, services and networks. Any legislative response must be adequate, that is take due account of the various characteristics of such media, services and networks as well as the different ways in which they may be used by the public: the different types of access by the public (free access/subscription, encrypted/in clear, etc.); their use for private or public communications, etc. These questions are currently being considered by the Council of Europe in a perspective which is wider than that of the present recommendation.

    The measure indicated in the 4th indent is inspired by the awareness that sentencing a person convicted of hate speech to a fine or a term of imprisonment may, in many cases, be ineffective in changing that person's views and ideas. The sanction of community service, which can be tailored to the specific nature of the crime (for instance, by carrying out work for or within the community insulted) may have an educational aspect which is more likely to change the sentenced person's attitude and perceptions by bringing about a better understanding of and respect for the group or groups concerned.

    The measures indicated in the 5th indent are aimed at mobilising civil society and the victims of hate speech to help combat this phenomenon. These measures suggest a number of legal tools to enhance the possibilities available under civil law. As stated in paragraph 38 below, criminal law may not always be suited to deal with particular instances of hate speech, and civil law generally offers greater flexibility in this regard. Domestic law permitting, organisations representing the victims of hate speech should be entitled to undertake civil law actions.

    Principle 3 stresses the role of the courts in providing effective and independent control over interferences by executive authorities with an individual's right to freedom of expression. This reflects the demands of the rule of law, which constitutes a fundamental principle of a democratic society (cf. European Court of Human Rights, Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A vol. 28, paragraph 55, pp. 25-26). It also follows from the "prescribed by law" requirement and the necessity requirement of Article 10, paragraph 2, ECHR that national law must provide legal protection against arbitrary interferences and adequate safeguards against abuse. Especially where human dignity and

fundamental rights such as freedom of expression are at stake, the courts form the appropriate forum, at least in the last resort, for taking decisions on the basis of a careful assessment of the various rights, values and interests.

    Principle 4 reflects the case-law of the organs of the ECHR on Articles 10 and 17 of the Convention.

    Principle 5 stresses that particular caution must be exercised by (criminal) prosecution authorities in dealing with hate speech cases. Practice in several European countries has shown that it may be very difficult to attain the level of proof required under criminal law. Rather than lowering this level, which could seriously limit the exercise of freedom of expression, it is suggested that these authorities give careful consideration to ascertaining whether sufficient evidence has been collected before a prosecution is ordered. This, of course, depends on whether or not the prosecuting authorities in the member States have a certain degree of discretion in this respect. It might be advisable to concentrate efforts on strong cases where prosecution is likely to result in a conviction. In the area of hate speech, there is a real danger that suspects present themselves to the public as "martyrs" or "victims" or, in the event of an acquittal, that they present the outcome of the case as a victory for their views. It is recommended that national guidelines be established which could serve as a basis for a co-ordinated prosecution policy in this field (see Principle 2, 3rd indent). Criminal sanctions in this sphere should strictly respect the principle of proportionality, not only as a general principle of law governing any imposition of sanctions, but also as a requirement flowing from Article 10, paragraph 2, ECHR. In particular, prison sentences for hate speech should remain the exception.

    Principle 6, which is based on the Jersild judgment (paragraph 31), is generally self-explanatory. Where, for example, a person's statements amounting to hate speech are described or even quoted in reports or editorial comments in the media, the legal responsibility of the media professional is entirely different from that of the author of the statements. While the author must bear direct responsibility for the content of his statements regardless of their dissemination by the media, it would unduly hamper the role of the media if the mere fact that they assisted in the dissemination of the statements engaged their legal responsibility or that of the media professional concerned. There are additional requirements which must be met before such responsibility can be engaged without violating the right to freedom of expression. These requirements are set out in principle 7.

    This does not mean that the media and media professionals should not exercise due care when reporting on hate speech or intolerance generally. There is a risk that their work might be interpreted by their audience as an expression of support for objectionable views. This, however, is a question of professionalism, in particular professional ethics, which should be addressed by media and media professionals themselves and not by public authorities. The observance of professional rules and principles by the media in itself is not a matter which member States should regulate since this would pose serious risks for freedom of expression and editorial independence and autonomy. The fact that certain provisions of national law

which lawfully restrict freedom of expression may correspond to certain rules of conduct adopted by media professionals is another matter.

    In this respect, reference may be made to the study mentioned in paragraph 10 above. According to this recent survey of codes of ethics adopted by media professionals in European countries, "the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race or nationality is one of the most widespread features of professional codes of ethics". Of the 31 codes currently in force, 26 contain such a prohibition. In addition, the code of the International Federation of Journalists (adopted in 1954 and revised in 1986) states in Article 7 that "journalists shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media and shall do their utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, amongst other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins".

    Of course, the above considerations concerning the distinct responsibility of the media vis-à-vis hate speech as compared to that of the author of such expressions do not apply insofar as hate speech emanates directly from the media or media professionals themselves (that is, other than reporting or commenting on hate speech originating from others). In such cases, the media or media professional must be considered as the author of the hate message within the meaning of Principle 6. It could be argued that the same is true where the media professional unreservedly and actively supports statements amounting to hate speech made by another person, but it may not always be easy to establish this. Even more difficult are situations where the media professional's attitude may be open to criticism for not having disapproved of, or counterbalanced, expressis verbis the statements reported. Since there is a scale of different possible attitudes, it is considered preferable to examine these in the light of Principle 7 which sets out the main test for determining the liability of the media professional.

    Principle 7 of the recommendation elaborates on Principle 6 by summing up key elements which national authorities, in particular the courts, should take into account when dealing with hate speech disseminated through the media. These elements are mainly based on the Jersild judgment (in particular paragraph 31).

    The text in the first indent is a reminder that Article 17 ECHR should play no role as concerns the legal approach to journalistic reporting on racism and intolerance, including possible reports and quotations of remarks amounting to hate speech made by other persons (see the commentary to Principles 4 and 6).

    The conditions set by Article 10, paragraph 2, ECHR for any interference with freedom of expression, as interpreted in the case-law of the organs of the Convention, can be summed up as follows.

Any such interference must:

a.    be foreseen in the complete and exhaustive list of restrictions set out in Article 10, paragraph 2, ECHR which must be narrowly interpreted;

b.    be laid down by law and formulated in clear and precise terms;

c.    be necessary in a democratic society and respond to a pressing social need;

d.    be proportional to the aim pursued.

    According to the relevant case-law of the Court, the "necessity" of interfering with media freedom must be convincingly established.

    The text in the second indent lists a number of factors which must be taken into account by national authorities, in particular the courts, when assessing whether interference with freedom of expression in this area is "necessary in a democratic society". These factors need not always be laid down expressly in written law, provided that they should be applied in concrete cases. The content of national legislation in this area should ensure that administrative authorities and the courts are able to apply standards which are in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 ECHR. In the case of media reporting on racism and intolerance, whether in the form of interviews or otherwise, a key factor in evaluating the "necessity" of an interference with freedom of expression is whether, considered as a whole, the media report had, from an objective point of view, the purpose of propagating racist or intolerant views and ideas. Among the relevant factors identified by the Court in the Jersild judgment, mention may be made of:

-    the manner in which the media report was prepared;

-    the contents of the report;

-    the context of the report (for example the type of media or programme; the length of the report and the nature of the audience for which it was intended);

-    the purpose of the report (for example informing the audience about a matter of public interest, such as the phenomenon or scale of intolerance, or, on the contrary, providing a platform for hate speech).

    As to the purpose of the report, this should be assessed, as indicated above, essentially on an objective basis. Nonetheless, where there is no doubt that the subjective purpose of the media professional responsible for the report was not racist or intolerant, this will constitute a relevant factor.

    The nature of the sanction which may be imposed is a further relevant factor for determining the proportionality of interferences with media freedom. In particular criminal law sanctions are generally likely to have deterrent effects and may thereby risk discouraging the media from discussing matters of public interest. The application of such sanctions must therefore be treated cautiously.

    The text in the third indent stresses that freedom of journalistic expression also covers the form in which information or ideas are conveyed. Media professionals should be allowed to exercise discretion in this regard, not only as concerns the manner in which a report is presented, but also the assessment of its news or information value.

    APPENDIX V

     Draft recommendation on the media

    and the promotion of a culture of tolerance

    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

    Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress;

    Stressing its commitment to guarantee the equal dignity of all individuals and the enjoyment of rights and freedoms without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status;

    Recalling that the Heads of State and Government of the member States of the Council of Europe expressed their conviction, at the Vienna Summit Conference (October 1993), that the principle of tolerance is the guarantee of the maintenance in Europe of an open society respecting cultural diversity;

    Resolved to intensify action against intolerance, taking as a basis the Plan of Action adopted at the Vienna Summit Conference;

    Welcoming the initiatives of international organisations, governments and various sectors of society to promote a culture of tolerance, and especially those taken by media professionals, and noting that the latter are in a particularly good position to promote these initiatives and ensure their general acceptance in all media sectors;

    Noting that the media can make a positive contribution to the fight against intolerance, especially where they foster a culture of understanding between different ethnic, cultural and religious groups in society;

    Stressing in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights the independence and the autonomy of media professionals and media organisations, and the need to avoid measures which interfere with these principles;

    Considering that media professionals might usefully be invited to reflect further on the problem of intolerance in the increasingly multicultural and multi-ethnic composition of the member States and on the measures which they might take to promote tolerance and understanding;

    Believing that such measures might be implemented at a number of levels, including schools of journalism, media organisations as well as in the context of the exercise of the media professions;

    Believing also that the success of such measures depends to a large extent on the degree of involvement of the different categories of professionals in the media sectors, in particular media proprietors, managers, editors, writers, programme makers, journalists and advertisers;

    Having regard to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1277 (1995) on migrants, ethnic minorities and media;

    Recommends that the governments of the member States:

1.    make the following target groups aware of the means of action set out in the appendix to this recommendation:

-    press, radio and television enterprises, as well as the new communications and advertising sectors;

-    the representative bodies of media professionals in these sectors;

-    regulatory and self-regulatory bodies in these sectors;

-    schools of journalism and media training institutes.

2.    examine in a positive spirit any requests for support for initiatives undertaken in pursuance of the objectives of this recommendation.

    Appendix to the draft recommendation on the media

    and the promotion of a culture of tolerance

    Scope

    The means of action set out hereafter aim to highlight non-exhaustive examples of professional practices conducive to the promotion of a culture of tolerance which merit more general application in the various media sectors mentioned above.

     Professional practices conducive to the promotion of a culture of tolerance

1.     Training

    Initial training

    Schools of journalism and media training institutes, in so far as they have not yet done so, might usefully introduce specialist courses in their core curricula with a view to developing a sense of professionalism which is attentive to:

-    the involvement of the media in multi-ethnic and multicultural societies;

-    the contribution which the media can make to a better understanding between different ethnic, cultural and religious communities.

    Further training

    Media enterprises might usefully provide in-house training or opportunities for outside training for their media professionals at all levels, on professional standards on tolerance and intolerance.

2.     Media enterprises

    The problem of intolerance calls for reflection by both the public and within the media enterprises. Experience in professional media circles has shown that these enterprises might usefully reflect on the following:

-    reporting factually and accurately on acts of racism and intolerance;

-    reporting in a sensitive manner on situations of tension between communities;

-    avoiding derogatory stereotypical depiction of members of cultural, ethnic or religious communities in publications and programme services;

-    treating individual behaviour without linking it to a person's membership of such communities where this is irrelevant;

-    depicting cultural, ethnic and religious communities in a balanced and objective manner and in a way which also reflects these communities' own perspectives and outlook;

-    alerting public opinion against the evils of intolerance;

-    deepening public understanding and appreciation of difference;

-    challenging the assumptions underlying intolerant remarks made by speakers in the course of interviews, reports, discussion programmes, etc;

-    considering the influence of the source of information on reporting;

-    the diversity of the workforce in the media enterprises and the extent to which it corresponds to the multi-ethnic, multicultural character of its readers, listeners or viewers.

3.     Representative bodies of media professionals

    Representative bodies of the various categories of media professionals might usefully undertake action programmes or practical initiatives for the promotion of a culture of tolerance.

4.     Codes of conduct

    Such initiatives and actions could go hand in hand with professional codes of conduct drawn up within the different media sectors, which address the problems of discrimination and intolerance by encouraging media professionals to make a positive contribution towards the development of tolerance and mutual understanding between the different religious, ethnic and cultural groups in society.

5.     Broadcasting

    While public service broadcasters have a special commitment to promote a culture of tolerance and understanding, the broadcasting media as a whole are a potent force for creating an atmosphere in which intolerance can be challenged. They might find inspiration from broadcasters who, for example,:

-    make adequate provision for programme services, also at popular viewing times, which help promote the integration of all individuals, groups and communities as well as proportionate amounts of airtime for the various ethnic, religious and other communities;

-    develop a multicultural approach to programme content so as to avoid programmes which present society in mono-cultural and mono-linguistic terms;

-    promote a multicultural approach in programmes which are specifically geared to children and young people so as to enable them to grow up with the understanding that cultural, religious and ethnic difference is a natural and positive element of society;

-    develop arrangements for sharing at the regional, national or European level, programme material which has proven its value in mobilising public opinion against the evils of intolerance or in contributing towards promoting community relations in multi-ethnic and multicultural societies.

6.     Advertising

    Although the multi-ethnic and multicultural character of consumer society is already reflected in certain commercial advertisements and although certain advertisers make an effort to prepare advertising in a way which reflects a positive image of cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, practices such as those set out hereafter could be developed by the professional circles concerned.

    In certain countries, codes of conduct have been drawn up within the advertising sector which prohibit discrimination on grounds such as race, colour, national origin, etc.

    There are media enterprises which refuse to carry advertising messages which portray cultural, religious or ethnic difference in a negative manner, for example by reinforcing stereotypes.

    Certain public and private organisations develop advertising campaigns designed to promote tolerance. The media could be invited to co-operate actively in the dissemination of such advertisements.

    Draft explanatory memorandum to the draft recommendation

    on the media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance

Introduction

    This recommendation, along with Recommendation No. R (97) .. on "hate speech", is one of the concrete results of the Council of Europe's intergovernmental work in the media sector in the years 1995-1996.

    Tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings are the very basis of a democratic and pluralist society. This explains why the Council of Europe has always attached the greatest importance to safeguarding and realising these ideals and principles.

    At the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe member States, held in Vienna from 8-9 October 1993, alarm was expressed about the resurgence of racism, xenophobia and antisemitism, the development of a climate of intolerance, the increase in acts of violence, notably against migrants and persons of immigrant origin, and the development of new expressions of xenophobia in the form of aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism. The Heads of State and Government expressed their conviction that these manifestations of intolerance threatened democratic societies and their fundamental values.

    At the Vienna Summit, a Plan of Action on combating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance was adopted. The Plan of Action set out a broad range of measures to mobilise the public and improve and effectively implement guarantees and policies aimed at combating these phenomena. The media sector is one of the sectors covered by the Plan of Action. In paragraph 5 of the Plan, the media professions were requested "to report and comment on acts of racism and intolerance factually and responsibly, and to continue to develop professional codes of ethics which reflect these requirements".

    The relevance of the media to the fight against racism and intolerance was also stressed in Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1277 (1995) on migrants, ethnic minorities and media. Paragraph 2 of this recommendation stated: "Media presentation of subjects connected with immigrants and ethnic minorities has a significant impact on public opinion. Although the media constitute an important means of combating racist and xenophobic views, prejudices and preconceived ideas, they can also have a role in the emergence or strengthening of such views".

    In a message to Steering Committees and ad hoc Committees on the fight against racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance (January 1994), the Committee of Ministers invited these Committees to take account, when discharging their terms of reference, of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Plan of Action and, accordingly, to step up or adjust their current activities in the areas mentioned or to propose new ones.

    At the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, 7-8 December 1994), the Ministers of the participating States condemned, in their Declaration on media in a democratic society, all forms of expression which incite to racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism and all forms of intolerance, since these undermine democratic security, cultural cohesion and pluralism. Furthermore, the Prague Action Plan setting out strategies for the promotion of media in a democratic society which the Ministers addressed to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, requested the Council of Europe to "study, in close consultation with media professionals and regulatory authorities, possible guidelines which could assist media professionals in addressing intolerance in all its forms" (item 6 of the Action Plan).

    Subsequently, the Steering Committee on the Mass Media (CDMM) instructed a Group of Specialists on media and intolerance (MM-S-IN) to examine, inter alia, the role which the media may play in propagating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance, as well as the contribution they may make to combating these evils.

    In analysing these issues, the MM-S-IN took account of provisions contained in international legal instruments (in particular the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the supervisory institutions of the latter Convention) as well as in the legislation of the member States of the Council of Europe. As to the latter, the MM-S-IN's work benefited greatly from a study, prepared under the auspices of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (Legal measures to combat racism and intolerance in the member States of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2 March 1995, document CRI (95) 2).

    In addition, the MM-S-IN commissioned a comparative study on codes of ethics dealing with media and intolerance from the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication of the University of Tampere in Finland (document MM-S-IN (95) 21; also published as: Kolehmainen/Pietiläinen, Comparative Study on Codes of Ethics Dealing with Media and Intolerance, in: Kaarle Nordenstreng (ed.), Reports on Media Ethics in Europe, University of Tampere Series B 41, 1995).

    In the course of its work, the MM-S-IN reached the conclusion that it would not be advisable to prepare legally binding instruments addressing the issue of media and intolerance over and above the current international legal framework (the most relevant of which are referred to in the preamble to the recommendation). Given the special situation of the media as well as the crucial importance of media freedom and the principles of editorial independence and autonomy, it was considered both preferable and more effective to concentrate on non-binding legal instruments, namely sets of principles which the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe could recommend to governments of member States as a basis for their legislative and other measures or policies in this field.

    Furthermore, the MM-S-IN felt that, in elaborating such principles, it was crucial to distinguish between: (1) the role which the media may play in propagating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance, and (2) the contribution which the media may make to combating these evils. This distinction was considered necessary, since the scope and justification for imposing legally binding measures differ greatly in respect of each area. As concerns the propagation of racism and intolerance, there is, in principle, scope for imposing legally binding standards without violating freedom of expression and the principle of editorial independence. However, as concerns the promotion of a positive contribution by the media, great care needs to be taken so as not to interfere with these principles. This area calls for measures of encouragement rather than legal measures.

    For this reason, the MM-S-IN and the CDMM decided to prepare two separate recommendations: the present one on the media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance and a second recommendation on "hate speech" (see Recommendation No. R (97) ..).

    At different stages of the drafting of these recommendations, the MM-S-IN consulted various representative organisations in the media sector as well as interested non governmental organisations so as to obtain their comments on the texts under preparation. These comments had a substantial bearing on the content of the two instruments.

    This recommendation also supplements the legal undertaking laid down in Article 9, paragraph 4, of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. This provision requires the States Parties to adopt, within the framework of their legal systems, adequate measures in order to facilitate access to the media for persons belonging to national minorities and in order to promote tolerance and permit cultural pluralism.

    The text of the draft recommendation was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers which, at the ..th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies on .., adopted the recommendation and authorised publication of the Explanatory Memorandum.

Operative part of the recommendation

    The operative section recommends that the governments of member States make the enterprises, including agencies, organisations, bodies and institutions mentioned aware of certain means of action. The aim of the recommendation is to offer examples of practices which have proven their worth and which are conducive to the promotion of a culture of tolerance and thus merit more general application in the various media sectors.

    This section clearly reflects the general approach underlying this recommendation in regard to the division of roles and responsibilities between governments and public authorities on the one hand, and the various media sectors on the other. Whereas in the area of "hate speech", binding measures by public authorities may be appropriate for combating excesses, the action which can be taken by governments in regard to the media's possible contribution to the promotion of a culture of tolerance is essentially of a non-legal nature, having regard

to the autonomy and independence of the media. Hence, apart from such action as the media and the various media sectors may take on their own, the measures which governments can take will consist mainly of aid and incentives to the media. This recommendation should be understood in this light.

    Such incentives and measures of encouragement may take different forms depending, inter alia, on the media sector concerned. The dissemination of relevant information, in particular about this recommendation, is one example, but there are others: the organisation of public campaigns, the commissioning, publication, dissemination and exchange of studies and research which might help initiate debate within the media sectors; provision of support for organisations or initiatives which seek to raise awareness in media circles of the need to promote tolerance. This is the sense of the second paragraph of the operative part of the recommendation.

    In this respect, it must be noted that a number of initiatives have already been taken by some individual media, training institutions and representative bodies of media professionals. Many of these, together with suggestions for new initiatives, were mentioned at a consultation which the Council of Europe held with media professionals on 20 and 21 October 1994. At this consultation, organised in the context of the implementation of the Plan of Action against racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance, media professionals from all key media sectors - both public and private - recognised the responsibility of these sectors for contributing to the fight against racism and intolerance. The meeting resulted in a rich collection of initiatives and proposals (Council of Europe document H/ONG (95) 2, Appendix V) which may serve as a source of inspiration for further media initiatives in this field. It also inspired much of the content of this recommendation.

Appendix to the recommendation

Professional practices conducive to the promotion of a culture of tolerance

1.     Training

    Initial training

    The first exposure to the principles and practice of the profession in training institutions is an essential staging post in the career of the professional. Skills are taught and knowledge acquired, to be developed further in professional life. It is the role of the journalism school or other media training institute to lay the firm foundations on which professionalism is built. For this reason, the text underscores the importance of the educational/training phase of a professional's career in instilling awareness of the significance of the media's involvement in multi-ethnic and multicultural societies, and especially the contribution which the media and media professionals can make to the promotion of a culture of tolerance.

    Research shows that little emphasis has hitherto been placed in journalism schools and media training institutes on creating awareness and appreciation of the role which the media may play in this context. This is seen to be a marked defect in the training process. For this reason, the text encourages the development of specialist courses which enable aspiring professionals in the media sector to learn about and discuss the reality of difference, and especially media's great potential to foster a more tolerant society based on the equal dignity of all its members. Such a contribution to enhancing the quality of the work of media professionals makes it necessary to provide students with a sound historical and socio-cultural understanding of immigration, difficulties besetting integration of ethnic, cultural and religious minorities in society, the spread of extremism, the links between social stability and tolerance, and the enriching function of difference.

    Research has shown that there is a lack of appropriate teaching materials in this area. The Council of Europe has sought to remedy this by commissioning a training handbook containing case studies. It is felt that further such initiatives should be encouraged so as to increase the availability of training tools. The professional organisations can assist in this respect, especially by making available to trainers copies of codes of conduct addressing the issue of intolerance or written and audiovisual material illustrating the various ways of dealing with topics such as tension between communities, crime in the immigrant community, etc.

    Further training

    Training in the contribution which the media can make to the promotion of a culture of tolerance must be seen as a continuing strategy. For this reason, the text encourages media enterprises to make provision for in-house training or for participation in training seminars, workshops, etc., organised outside the framework of the enterprise. It is felt particularly important to provide these facilities for those members of staff who are likely at some stage to exercise influence over the operational strategies of the media enterprise, since such persons can be proponents and facilitators of change.

2.    Media enterprises

    The promotion of a culture of tolerance requires a sustained and continuing effort on the part of media professionals. The lessons learned within the context of training must be applied to workaday life within the media enterprise.

    For this reason, the text highlights the value of reflection within the enterprise. Internal discussion has a number of advantages. Firstly, it keeps alive the issue of the media's involvement in this area. Secondly, it helps to create a tolerance-sensitive working environment. Thirdly, it can help set standards and identify shortcomings.

    The text lists a number of topics drawn from best professional practices as reflected in codes of ethics, standards, etc. Research has shown that many such codes stress the media's responsibility to promote a culture of tolerance. It is important to ensure that they are acted upon. Internal discussion on how to achieve targets and standards is one important means of ensuring that these standards permeate professional life.

    The initiative to organise discussion and reflection on the contribution which a particular media enterprise can make to the promotion of a culture of tolerance may come from the professionals themselves or from the senior management. It is important to associate both management and working professionals with this exercise and with the conclusions. An underlying concern should be the need to link respect for professional standards with the notion of quality communication to readers, viewers and listeners.

    The listed topics may be seen as benchmarks. Discussions may reveal that the communications policy of the media enterprise is not in line with certain or all of the standards. Initiatives can be taken to rectify the shortcomings.

3.     Representative bodies of media professionals

    The text refers to action programmes and practical initiatives which representative bodies of media professionals, such as associations or unions of journalists, publishers, editors, broadcasters, advertisers, etc, might pursue. Here again, reference can be made to some recent examples which show that certain organisations, especially unions of journalists, have taken concrete steps to launch and sustain a discussion among their membership about their possible contribution to the promotion of a culture of tolerance. For example, in 1995, the following organisations organised conferences and seminars dealing with this question in general or with specific aspects of it: the National Union of Journalists (United Kingdom), the Dutch Union of Journalists (NVJ), the Nordic Unions of Journalists, Public Broadcasting for a Multicultural Europe (PBME), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), CIRCOM Regional, etc. For many of these organisations, such meetings are not one-off events but part of a wider action programme carried out, for example, by working groups set up for this purpose.

    Mention can also be made of the international media working group against racism and xenophobia, convened by the IFJ, in co-operation with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and the World Association of Newspapers (FIEJ), which has been developing and implementing an international programme of activities in this field since 1994.

    The activities mentioned could serve as a useful source of inspiration for other representative bodies of media professionals.

4.     Codes of conduct

    As was stated in paragraph 27 above, many organisations of media professionals in European countries have adopted codes of conduct, also referred to as codes of practice or ethics. The great majority, but not all, of these codes contain provisions on the prohibition of racial discrimination. In many, but not all, European countries, self-regulatory bodies such as press councils have been established to monitor observance of the professional code of conduct. Although the effectiveness of these codes and self-regulatory bodies is sometimes called into question, and perhaps with some justification, it appears to be very difficult to obtain a representative picture of their effectiveness. Not only do studies tend to cover extreme cases and overlook ordinary conduct which is in line with the codes, it is also legitimate to ask to what extent conduct which is in line with the code is the actual result of the code (cf. section 6.1 of the comparative study quoted in paragraph 10 above).

    On the other hand, steps can be taken to enhance the effectiveness of codes of conduct. It would be highly desirable if not only media professionals but also those responsible at senior management level were to be associated with the preparation of such codes. Furthermore, some media enterprises have drawn up their own individual codes of conduct. This approach has the advantage of bringing the code closer to the workplace and to everyday decision-making.

    Irrespective of the question of their effectiveness, it is uncontested that the elaboration of codes of conduct has the advantage of setting standards or "benchmarks" which can provide a reference for responsible and professional conduct. In this way, they may play a useful role, for instance in the field of training and in internal discussions within media enterprises (see the comments in paragraphs 23 and 27 above), but also as a platform for discussions organised by representative bodies of media professionals (see paragraphs 30-31).

5.     Broadcasting

    This text deals specifically with broadcasting because of the wide reach and the immediate and powerful effects which the audiovisual media in particular can have on the public.

    Although the text concerns both public and private broadcasting organisations, it is clear, as was acknowledged at the 4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Prague, 7-8 December 1994), that public service broadcasters have undertaken special commitments as a result of their missions. In Resolution No. 1 on the future of public service broadcasting, the participating States agreed that the principal missions of public service broadcasters include:

"-    to provide, through their programming, a reference point for all members of the public and a factor for social cohesion and integration of all individuals, groups and communities. In particular, they must reject any cultural, sexual, religious or racial discrimination and any form of social segregation;

-    to develop and structure programme schedules and services of interest to a wide public while being attentive to the needs of minority groups;

-    to reflect the different philosophical ideas and religious beliefs in society, with the aim of strengthening mutual understanding and tolerance and promoting community relations in multi-ethnic and multicultural societies."

    Specialists in the broadcasting community recognise that, while specific programming for minority groups remains important (for example, for maintaining minority culture, obtaining information about countries of origin, language skills, and providing information on their rights, etc.), and might even require further development where the needs of certain communities are not sufficiently catered for (for example, the under-representation of certain religions within religious broadcasting in many countries), "inclusive" and multicultural programming is necessary to promote better understanding of the different cultures and communities in society as a whole and to avoid marginalisation of groups and communities. In the same vein, Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1277 (1995) on migrants, ethnic minorities and media points to the importance of encouraging both public and private media towards an objective coverage of migrant and ethnic minority issues and the provision of opportunities for the balanced involvement of representatives of migrant and ethnic minority communities in mainstream radio and television programmes (paragraph 5.iv.f of the recommendation). This point was also stressed at the Conference on the role of the media in promoting integration and equality of opportunity for immigrants, organised by the Council of Europe in Solingen (Germany) from 30 November to 2 December 1994.

    As regards the notion of "multi-cultural programming", it must be noted that the Programme Committee of the EBU adopted a declaration of intent on 26 October 1994 which is a response to the Declaration adopted at the Vienna Summit of the Council of Europe. In the declaration of intent, the public service broadcasters declare their awareness of the important role they have to play in a multiracial, multicultural and multi-faith Europe, and recognise that it essential that they make every effort to reflect accurately the cultural, racial and linguistically diverse character of society in their programmes.

    Following the EBU's declaration of intent, PBME adopted a set of recommendations for broadcasters on fair portrayal of ethnic minorities in European societies in 1995. These recommendations emphasise the importance of multicultural programming and offer recommendations both for broadcasting generally and for specific programme genres.

    Although there are many programme genres where broadcasting can make a visible contribution to promoting a climate of tolerance in which "difference" is accepted as an ordinary element of multicultural society, sports programmes in particular offer excellent opportunities for presenting to a broad public sport and sports events as occasions for individuals and peoples to meet without discrimination and in a spirit of fair play. This point was also stressed in the Resolution on tolerance and sport which was adopted at the 8th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Sport (Lisbon, 17-18 May 1995).

    In relation to the final paragraph of this section, mention may be made of the example given by the EBU which has established a working group through which programmes dealing with tolerance or the promotion of community relations may be exchanged between broadcasters in European countries.

6.     Advertising

    This text is partly inspired by, and constitutes a specific elaboration of, Recommendation No. R (84) 3 on principles on television advertising, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 February 1984.

    Advertisements by their very nature are generally short, snappy and incisive. They often make use of clichés and stereotypes. For these reasons, their potential for perpetuating negative stereotypes is great and care should be taken to avoid this.

    The last paragraph of the text refers, inter alia, to campaigns organised by public or private organisations aimed at promoting tolerance and making the public better aware of the dangers of intolerance.

Footnote: 1    This Article states that:

    "1.    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    2.    The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Footnote: 2    The European Court of Human Rights has already taken the view that "it is not possible to find in the domestic law of the various Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals. The view taken by their respective laws of the requirements of morals varies from time to time and from place to place, especially in times characterised by a rapid evolution of opinions on this subject". Eur. Court H.R. Handyside v. United Kingdom, 7 December 1976. Series A, No. 24, paragraph 48. This reasoning may apply by analogy to the notion of violence.

Footnote: 3    By way of illustration, a study published in 1995 by the Swedish Minister of Culture stresses that parents should be in a position to have advance warning of the programmes and films containing violence which they consider to be unacceptable for children. Broadcasters and the press should therefore provide more detailed information on programmes, especially those which are certified for adults only. Television channels should ensure that programmes to be shown before a certain time in the evening do not contain violent images and, as appropriate, violent films should be preceded by a formal warning. Cf. "A handbook in four chapters on the depiction of violence in the media".

Footnote: 4    By way of illustration, States could consider measures to enable foreign viewers and listeners who complain about the violent content of certain national programmes which can be received abroad to complain to a regulatory authority or competent national body. States could also study the desirability of involving the existing bodies at the European level such as the European Audiovisual Observatory, the various research centres, etc. Finally, they could facilitate information exchange between national regulatory authorities.

Footnote: 5    Article 7 (1)(2) of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television:

    "1) All items of programme services, as concerns their presentation and content, shall respect the dignity of the human being and the fundamental rights of others. In particular, they shall not: a) be indecent and in particular contain pornography; b. give undue prominence to violence or be likely to incite to racial hatred.

    2) All items of programme services which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of children and adolescents shall not be scheduled when, because of the time of transmission and reception, they are likely to watch them

Footnote: 6    By way of illustration of concrete contributions made by various sectors, reference may be made to the initiatives undertaken in Norway since 1995 in the framework of a national awareness-raising and educational campaign launched by the government, or the "Prix Jeunesse International" established by the Bavarian broadcasting corporation Bayerischer Rundfunk. Mention may also be made of the preparation of relevant teaching material and basic and ongoing training programmes for teachers specialising in electronic media education. These campaigns, programmes and material could be prepared by the relevant authorities of the member States in co-operation with electronic media professionals and other interested sectors. National regulatory authorities could in particular play an important role in the launch of and follow-up to educational initiatives.