The ARM Project, in collaboration with Panteion University, hosted a roundtable on disinformation and freedom of expression, focusing on comparative European experiences in global perspectives. The discussion brought together journalists, researchers, and human rights experts to explore how disinformation, information suppression, and shrinking media independence affect both authoritarian and democratic contexts.
While the project focuses on examples of information control by authoritarian governments, the discussions emphasised the fact that the space for free speech is also shrinking in Europe – even in traditionally ‘liberal’ democratic settings. ARM Scientific Coordinator Lovise Aalen described how these ‘liberal democracies’ have “illiberal practices that span across regime types.” This applies across EU countries, where David Díaz-Jogeix, Senior Director of Programmes at ARTICLE 19, observed that we are seeing a “deterioration of standards of freedom of expression in the EU.”
Together these remarks highlight how threats to free expression today are no longer limited to repressive regimes, or their attempts to transnational attempts to control information. Now it is a growing concern within democratic societies themselves.
Free, but not independent
Greece is also experiencing this tightening of freedom of speech. It started – as it often does – with greater control of the press. Nektaria Stamouli, a journalist at Politico and Kathimerini, explained how this has taken place in the wake of COVID-19 and the 2008 financial crisis eroding people’s trust in the media. Since, power has concentrated in the hands of the few. “The first step was buying out the media, then buying out justice. Greece is between the two [steps].”
This has happened in plain sight, with the impacts and the scale of restrictions hidden from public view. Panteion University’s Dimitris Christopoulos described the press in Greece as “free, but not independent. This hides the lack of freedom.” With a grip of control on the narrative, unseen censorship and self-censorship grows as journalistic independence wanes.
Eliza Triantafyllou, a journalist with Inside Story, explained how in Greece journalists are proactively following editorial lines. “Before, editors would only intervene after a story had been written. Now journalists are asking for the editor’s position before even submitting a story.”
This ultimately creates a culture of uncertainty and fear that discourages investigative work and rewards conformity. Not only does this further erode trust in the media, it also leads to an increase in apathy.
After the financial crisis in 2008, the EU Memorandum of Understanding with Greece leading to increased fiscal surveillance and external control taught – according to Thanasis Koukakis – “apathy to the Greeks.” This combined with the increased consumption of news via social media has led to “reading being replaced by scrolling” – only increasing apathy towards politics. Triantafyllou describes this apathy and indifference as “the biggest threat to freedom of expression.” The influence of social media, combined with political fatigue, has weakened civic engagement and created an environment in which restrictions on speech can deepen without widespread resistance.
Democratic backsliding
Unlike financial crises or issues of security, the EU has done little to put pressure on governments that are using illiberal practices to limit freedom of expression. Díaz-Jogeix said that rather than looking to Brussels, countries need to find their own solutions to these restrictions. “As we have seen in Budapest, Hungary is not being challenged [by the EU].”
EU mechanisms have been limited in addressing this internal democratic backsliding, and thus it has become the responsibility of national actors to defend freedom of expression from within. Mechanisms such as the Media Freedom Act will be tested by authoritarian actors so doubt remains about the EU’s ability to protect European democracies.
The ARM project has been conducting empirical research of the experiences of countries outside Europe, and their diaspora, that have already experienced this democratic backsliding. Lessons from these countries are thus even more relevant for the EU as we are beginning to see similar patterns in Europe.
Foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) is often entangled with this internal democratic backsliding. Ensuring that countries can maintain resilient information ecosystems needs to be a key consideration for policymakers – on both national and EU Levels – to address the risk of FIMI and protect democracy.
Further afield, US has always been held as a benchmark for the freedom of expression. However, as Stamouli stated, “when the US is forcing the firing of comedians… they are legitimising information control.” With big tech aligning with Trump, Díaz-Jogeix explained how “we are running out of models that protect the freedom of expression.”
This fragmented global picture when it comes to free speech, and the spreading of disinformation is only being amplified by platforms feeding polarisation and weakening shared standards for public discourse. With algorithms pushing us to the extremes, it is creating more confused, polarised societies.
This all paints a very bleak picture for the future of free speech in Europe and around the world. Aalen, however, emphasised how there are still examples of hope. “As we have seen in Brazil and Poland, it is possible for there to be improvements for freedom of speech.”
The ARM project will continue its research into transnational nature of information control and the techniques used by governments to implement it. However, this event was a timely reminder that the international landscape around disinformation and the freedom of expression is shifting rapidly.