By: Peter Jančič (Spletni časopis)
On New Year’s Eve, during a correspondence session, the government proposed a new media law to parliament. The existing regulation, which already requires journalists to disclose their sources to the courts – even if they had assured those sources that their identities would not be revealed – has been expanded with provisions allowing journalists and media outlets to be investigated and spied upon, provided a court orders it, to uncover their sources. Until now, the media law did not explicitly permit the police and intelligence services to spy on where the media obtains its information.
“Pluralisation” for even more left-leaning content
Minister of Culture Asta Vrečko announced that the purpose of the new media law, after two decades under the current legislation, is to ensure the right to comprehensive information and freedom of expression in the modern media environment. However, such a “new media environment” does not actually exist in the country.
The real purpose of the law likely lies in securing additional funding for left-wing tycoons who own all the daily newspapers. Print media is losing readers significantly, and funding would ostensibly be provided, for instance, for digitalisation. Yet all print media has long been digitised and is available online. The government also plans to distribute funds even more extensively through the so-called “pluralisation fund”, ostensibly to ensure media plurality. However, it is well-known that this fund predominantly supports left-leaning media. Right-leaning outlets, such as Planet TV, Demokracija, and Nova24TV, which are few, are effectively excluded. Efforts are also being made to marginalise these right-leaning outlets, including investigations in parliament. If possible, it seems likely that non-aligned media would be banned outright, as was the case during the post-war socialist dictatorship.
For the 2025 budget, the new law would entail an additional €4.2 million in costs, and by 2026, €8 million, according to government estimates. However, this is merely an addition to the extensive state interventions in the media that the government does not openly mention, such as funding for RTV Slovenia and the Slovenian Press Agency (STA). With the increase in the RTV license fee, RTV Slovenia will receive an additional €10 million this year, with another €10 million promised by the government from the minority affairs budget line, a sum also provided last year. Millions are also allocated to STA. Moreover, various media outlets are funded indirectly through sponsorship contracts and advertising budgets from state-owned companies. One notable novelty in the government’s proposal is that all sponsorships by state-owned companies would have to be publicly disclosed.
No real protection for journalistic sources
The provisions regarding the protection of journalistic sources are particularly peculiar. Source protection is a right recognised in the laws of many countries and under international law. It prohibits authorities, including courts, from compelling journalists to reveal the identity of anonymous sources. This right is based on the understanding that, without strong guarantees of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interest with journalists.
In Slovenia, the protection of journalistic sources is already inadequate. Journalists are legally obligated to disclose their sources to courts when acting as witnesses. The new law would explicitly allow state authorities to investigate editorial offices and monitor journalists’ communications if ordered by a court, to identify their sources.
The current law, which does not ensure source protection, states in Article 21:
“Editors, journalists, or contributors are not obligated to disclose the source of information, except in cases provided by criminal law.”
The Criminal Procedure Act states that a journalist, editor, or author of a contribution must disclose their source as a witness if disclosure is necessary to prevent an immediate danger to life or health, to prevent the commission of a criminal offense punishable by three or more years of imprisonment, or to prevent offenses such as the solicitation of persons under the age of fifteen for sexual purposes under Article 173.a, the display, possession, production, or distribution of pornographic material under Article 176, or the abuse of official position or official rights under Article 257 of the Penal Code.
Article 257 of the Penal Code is particularly notable. For example, when I was summoned as a witness to the specialised prosecution office, they tried to extract from me who had revealed to the editorial team of Siol.net (which I led) that the police suspected Teodor Goznikar of sending threatening letters with military bullets to Prime Minister Janez Janša, Defence Minister Matej Tonin, Interior Minister Aleš Hojs, Economy Minister Zdravko Počivalšek, and several MPs, including Deputy Speaker Branko Simonovič. With the help of a lawyer, I refused to testify to protect the source. Earlier, I had also rejected the demand to disclose which journalist reported on the matter. We concealed the journalist’s identity, preventing judicial harassment. Under the new law, journalists and authors would be required to sign their work. Violations would incur fines. The use of pseudonyms to protect journalists from state repression or mafia threats would not be outright prohibited but clearly discouraged.
If a legal proceeding ensued, I would be required under the law to disclose who informed me of the Goznikar suspicions. But I would refuse, both under the old and new laws, as revealing the source would be unprofessional and highly unethical. Although the unknown source formally abused their official position by sharing the information, they acted rightly. The fact that police had identified a suspect was being concealed from the public at the time. I published the information because it was significant for the public to know what the police were doing.
This reflects the provisions of Article 257 of the Penal Code, which outlines when journalists cannot protect their sources in court.
In the proposed new law, the article stating that “editors, journalists, or contributors are not obligated to disclose their sources of information, except in cases provided by criminal law” has been significantly extended but retains a fundamental flaw: it still requires journalists to disclose their sources to the court. Moreover, an additional error appears in the very first sentence of the new article. It states: “Publishers and their editors, journalists, or other contributors must ensure the confidentiality of their sources of information.” This provision is fundamentally flawed. Journalists are typically required to disclose their sources to enhance credibility and allow the public to verify the accuracy of information. Confidentiality should only be ensured when there are compelling reasons to protect anonymity, and only in such cases must it be safeguarded. Later in the new article, however, it explicitly allows media outlets to be investigated, monitored, and secretly surveilled to uncover hidden sources, provided a judge authorises it.
Here is the new article:
(protection of sources of information)
Publishers and their editors, journalists, or other contributors must ensure the confidentiality of their sources of information. Except for courts, and only in cases provided by criminal law, no one may demand that a publisher, editor, journalist, contributor, or any other person who, due to their professional or other relationship with the publisher or its editorial team, could have information related to journalistic sources or confidential communication or could identify them, disclose a source of information or other confidential communication. Furthermore, individuals mentioned in the previous sentence may not be detained, investigated, penalised, or have their business or private premises monitored, searched, or seized to obtain information related to journalistic sources or confidential communication, unless such measures are authorised by a court decision. (2) It is prohibited to install invasive software for monitoring on any device used by publishers, their editorial teams, journalists, or any other individuals who, due to their professional or other relationship with the publisher or its editorial team, could have information related to journalistic sources or confidential communication or could identify them, unless such a measure is authorised by a court decision.
Previously, the media law did not allow authorities (police or intelligence services) to monitor or eavesdrop on media with a court order. When it comes to the use of special methods and tools (such as spying), judicial decisions authorising such measures are classified and lack substantial oversight. Serious abuses have already been observed.
Minimal oversight should be provided by the opposition oversight commission in parliament. However, in this term, the largest opposition party, SDS, has been blocked from this oversight role by MPs from ruling parties in the committee led by Urška Klakočar Zupančič. Such obstruction rarely occurs without substantial reasons.
As demonstrated by the case of former Maribor mayor and state councillor Franc Kangler, serious abuses of wiretapping and covert surveillance are possible when authorised by judges. In Kangler’s case, the use of special methods, including wiretapping and similar measures, was ordered in a series of cases by Judge Janez Žirovnik. Žirovnik had previously been an operative in the secret political police (SDV) of the former socialist regime and, in the new system, served as a high-ranking official in the intelligence service (first called VIS, now SOVA) before his judicial career. Information obtained through wiretapping and covert monitoring leaked to the media, smearing Kangler and the party he was affiliated with at the time. The result was the resignation of the mayor of Slovenia’s second-largest city and a significant collapse of the SLS party, thereby increasing the likelihood of left-leaning parties gaining power at the national level.
Administrative burdens and fines
The new media law will also target smaller media outlets with extensive and unnecessary administrative burdens imposed by the Ministry of Culture, alongside hefty fines for any oversights or failure to immediately remove “inappropriate” content as demanded by authorities. For state-funded media, which receive millions in public funding, complying with these requirements will be straightforward, and they can afford the fines as they operate with state money.
However, such measures could devastate the few independent private media outlets.
Bojan Požar commented on this as follows:
The more I read the new Media Act, the more I realise I’ll have to register at least three times as a media outlet that publishes “content for the public”:
- as #Požareport
- as #UraResnice
- and as #BojanPožar on X. 🥃
P.S.: This is not a joke – it’s what the law requires; otherwise, they’ll fine me. I’ll be the first target since I’m already in their sights.
media law in full: Download the full text of the Media Law