1.
Introduction
In the fabric of any democratic society, the principle of freedom of speech stands as a
cornerstone, facilitating the exchange of ideas, fostering vibrant debates, and empowering
individuals to express themselves without fear of retribution. It serves as a fundamental right,
essential for the flourishing of democracy, the advancement of knowledge, and the protection
of individual liberties. However, the realization of this freedom is often a contested terrain,
influenced by cultural, political, and legal factors unique to each nation.
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed by the member states of the
United Nations.1 For many, this document is the most important of the twentieth century but
even after all this time we are faced with a world that does not fully recognise the claims
made in the Declaration.
Freedom of speech was implemented in Article 19 in the Universal declaration of human
rights:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.”2
Freedom of speech is very important and a core for the whole democratic process securing
fair and equal society for all. For instance, without it, people cannot point out their thoughts
on the political events in the country and this later represents a danger to democracy.
Or focus will be on the country of Romania where the importance of freedom of speech is
very particular since the country navigates its post-communist era and strives towards greater
transparency, accountability, and pluralism.
Romania is a nation with a rich historical tapestry and a complex contemporary landscape
and offers a compelling lens through which to examine the challenges, triumphs, and
evolving dynamics surrounding this fundamental right. By delving into the socio-political
climate, legal frameworks, and cultural attitudes towards freedom of speech in Romania, we
aim to gain deeper insights into its importance, limitations, and implications for the broader
global discourse on democracy and human rights.
2. Historical context
Romania's journey towards embracing freedom of speech has been intertwined with its
tumultuous historical narrative. The foundation of modern Romanian society began to take
shape in the 19th century, marked by struggles for independence and nation-building efforts.
During this period, the concept of freedom of speech emerged as a rallying cry among
1
O'Byrne, Darren J.; Human rights : an introduction
2
[Link] access on
8.5.2024
intellectuals and activists seeking to challenge authoritarian rule and advance democratic
ideals.
One significant milestone in Romania's quest for freedom of speech occurred during the late
19th and early 20th centuries when Romanian intellectuals, inspired by European
enlightenment ideals, championed the importance of free expression in shaping a more just
and progressive society. Writers, poets, and journalists played pivotal roles in challenging
censorship and advocating for press freedom, despite facing persecution from oppressive
regimes.
However, the mid-20th century brought dark clouds of totalitarianism to Romania with the
rise of communist rule under Nicolae Ceaușescu's regime. During this era, freedom of speech
was severely curtailed, dissenting voices were silenced, and censorship became pervasive
across all forms of media. The regime tightly controlled information flow and suppressed any
opposition, leading to widespread fear and self-censorship among the populace.
The turning point came in December 1989, when a series of mass protests culminated in the
overthrow of Ceaușescu's regime. With the collapse of communism, Romania embarked on a
tumultuous path towards democracy, marked by efforts to rebuild institutions, establish the
rule of law, and safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms.
In the post-communist era, Romania made strides in enshrining freedom of speech in its legal
framework. The 1991 Constitution guaranteed the right to freedom of expression, laying the
groundwork for a more open and pluralistic society. Despite these advancements, challenges
persist, including concerns over media ownership concentration, political interference, and
the lingering legacy of censorship.
Today, Romania continues to grapple with the complexities of balancing freedom of speech
with other societal interests, such as combating hate speech and disinformation. As the
country navigates its democratic trajectory, the historical struggle for freedom of speech
serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring importance of safeguarding this fundamental
right in shaping Romania's future.
3. Legal framework
In Romania, the legal protection for freedom of speech is enshrined in several key legal documents,
primarily the Romanian Constitution, along with specific laws and regulations.
Constitutional Provisions
The Romanian Constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of speech. Article 30 states that freedom of
expression through ideas, opinions, and beliefs is inviolable, and censorship of any kind is prohibited.
This includes the freedom to establish publications and the prohibition of any publication bans.
However, the Constitution also sets boundaries for free speech, prohibiting defamation, incitement to
hatred, discrimination, violence, and obscene acts against public morals (Articles 30(1) - 30(8))
(Constitute) (Cdep).
Key Legal Frameworks
1. Civil and Criminal Codes: Romania's criminal code provides for offenses that can limit
speech, such as defamation and incitement to hatred. The balance between protecting
individual dignity and freedom of expression is a critical aspect of these regulations
(Wikipedia).
2. Law on Preventing and Sanctioning All Forms of Discrimination (Ordinance No.
137/2000): This law addresses various forms of discrimination and ensures that expressions
leading to discriminatory practices can be curtailed, aligning with European Union directives
on human rights (Wikipedia).
3. Freedom of the Press: While the Constitution ensures press freedom, there have been
instances where journalists faced harassment, particularly when reporting critically on
government actions. The media landscape is regulated to ensure that public opinion receives
accurate information, and the autonomy of public radio and television is constitutionally
guaranteed (Article 31) (Wikipedia) (Cdep).
Enforcement and Challenges
Despite a robust legal framework, enforcement of these laws can be inconsistent due to bureaucratic
hurdles and corruption. For example, while anti-discrimination laws are comprehensive, the lack of
effective enforcement mechanisms often undermines their impact (Wikipedia).
International Agreements
Romania is a signatory to various international human rights treaties that bolster its legal framework
for freedom of speech, including the European Convention on Human Rights. These commitments
require Romania to adhere to international standards of freedom of expression and non-
discrimination.
In summary, Romania's legal protection for freedom of speech is well-articulated in its Constitution
and supported by specific laws. However, the effectiveness of these protections is sometimes
challenged by enforcement issues and the broader political and social environment (Constitute)
(Cdep).
4. Challenges
To compare the historical background with the current situation in Romania, especially focusing on
architecture designed for spying during the communist era, let's delve into the specifics:
Historical Background
During Nicolae Ceaușescu's regime in Romania (1965-1989), the secret police, known as the
Securitate, established an extensive surveillance network to monitor and control the populace. The
architecture of the time reflected this pervasive surveillance. Buildings, particularly in urban areas,
were often designed with features that facilitated eavesdropping and observation. Common tactics
included placing listening devices in walls, designing spaces where conversations could be easily
overheard from adjacent rooms, and using mirrors strategically to monitor activities without being
seen (The World from PRX) (Encyclopedia Britannica).
These architectural choices were part of a broader strategy of psychological control, ensuring that
citizens felt they were constantly being watched, even in their private spaces. The Securitate's
methods created an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, making it difficult for people to trust even their
closest associates. This oppressive environment was a hallmark of Ceaușescu's totalitarian rule, aimed
at stifling dissent and maintaining the regime's grip on power (The World from PRX).
Today’s Situation
Post-1989, Romania has transitioned to a democratic system, but the legacy of the Securitate's
surveillance continues to cast a long shadow. The modern Romanian intelligence service, the SRI, is
reputed to include many former Securitate officers, indicating a degree of continuity from the past.
Despite this, the architectural remnants of the communist era remain as historical artifacts rather than
tools of surveillance. Buildings that once facilitated state spying are now subject to different uses,
including modernization for residential and commercial purposes (The World from PRX)
(Encyclopedia Britannica).
Bucharest, in particular, still bears the architectural marks of its communist past. The city is dotted
with utilitarian apartment blocks, known as "blocks," which were originally designed for mass
housing but also served the surveillance needs of the regime. Today, while these structures are
reminders of a bygone era, they are integrated into the modern urban landscape, housing a new
generation that may not be fully aware of their sinister history (EuroTrekker).
Conclusion
The architectural design for surveillance during the communist period in Romania was a crucial part
of the regime's control strategy. These designs included hidden listening devices and strategic
placements that facilitated spying on citizens. Today, these buildings stand as historical remnants,
with their purposes transformed, reflecting Romania's journey from a repressive regime to a
democratic society. The physical architecture of the past remains, but its role has significantly
changed, symbolizing both a dark history and a resilient progression towards freedom and openness
(The World from PRX) (EuroTrekker).
5. Media landscape
The media landscape in Romania today presents a mixed picture of diversity and
independence, with several key challenges and notable characteristics.
Historical Context
During the communist era, media in Romania was tightly controlled by the state. The
Securitate, Romania's secret police, maintained strict oversight, using media as a propaganda
tool to support the regime. This led to a lack of press freedom and the suppression of
dissenting voices. The transition to democracy post-1989 brought significant changes,
including the establishment of new media institutions and the introduction of democratic
principles in media governance.
Current Media Landscape
1. Diversity and Pluralism: Romania's media landscape is diverse, featuring a variety
of private and public broadcasters, print media, and online platforms. However, the
concentration of media ownership among a few wealthy individuals and corporations
poses a risk to true pluralism. These media moguls often have political connections,
which can influence editorial policies and content (Centre for Media Pluralism and
Freedom) (European Journalism Observatory - EJO).
2. Independence and Freedom: While Romania has legal frameworks intended to
protect media freedom, practical enforcement is inconsistent. Reporters Without
Borders' World Press Freedom Index has shown a decline in Romania's ranking,
highlighting issues such as political influence, economic pressures, and self-
censorship among journalists. The European Journalism Observatory notes that
informal pressures from political and business entities continue to undermine
journalistic independence (Centre for Media Pluralism and Freedom) (European
Journalism Observatory - EJO).
3. Challenges:
a. Political Influence: Political interference remains a significant problem. The
Media Pluralism Monitor 2023 identified medium to high risks in areas like
political independence and editorial autonomy. Politicians and parties often
exert influence over media outlets, particularly during election periods (Centre
for Media Pluralism and Freedom).
b. Economic Pressures: Many media outlets face financial instability, which can
lead to dependency on government advertising and private funding,
compromising their independence. The economic challenges also contribute to
poor working conditions for journalists, increasing the likelihood of self-
censorship (European Journalism Observatory - EJO).
c. Digital Transformation and Disinformation: The rise of digital media has
transformed the landscape but also brought challenges such as the spread of
disinformation. Efforts to combat fake news are ongoing, but the digital
environment remains a battleground for factual integrity (Centre for Media
Pluralism and Freedom).
Conclusion
The media landscape in Romania today is characterized by a mixture of diversity and
significant challenges to independence. While there are numerous media outlets, the
concentration of ownership, political influence, and economic pressures undermine true
media freedom. Ongoing efforts by various organizations aim to strengthen the media's role
in democracy, but substantial obstacles remain (Centre for Media Pluralism and Freedom)
(European Journalism Observatory - EJO).
6. Case studies
Case Studies on Threats to Freedom of Speech in Romania
Romania has faced several notable instances where freedom of speech was under threat, highlighting
ongoing challenges in ensuring media independence and protecting journalistic rights. Here are some
significant examples:
1. Gîrleanu v. Romania (2009): Marian Gîrleanu, an investigative journalist, was arrested and
fined for possessing classified military information that he had obtained during his
journalistic activities. Gîrleanu argued that his actions were part of a legitimate investigation
of public interest. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) eventually ruled that while
protecting national security is a legitimate aim, the Romanian authorities failed to
demonstrate that Gîrleanu’s actions posed a significant threat. The Court highlighted that the
domestic courts did not sufficiently weigh the public interest in the information against the
need for confidentiality (Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University).
2. Social Defamation Law (2015): In October 2015, the Romanian Senate passed a
controversial law that imposed heavy fines for “social defamation,” which included
defamation of groups. This law was seen as a direct threat to freedom of speech due to its
vague definitions and potential for abuse. It was heavily criticized by civil society
organizations and journalists for undermining constitutional rights and creating a climate of
fear. Though ultimately not adopted, the passage of this law through the Senate underscored
the susceptibility of Romanian legislation to political manipulation and the sensitivity to
criticism (Public Seminar).
3. Liviu Dragnea’s Influence: Liviu Dragnea, a prominent Romanian politician, has been
associated with multiple attempts to restrict media freedom. His tenure saw several legislative
efforts that appeared to serve private interests and stifle dissent. For example, Dragnea was
behind the push for the social defamation law and has been criticized for using his political
power to influence media coverage and suppress unfavorable reporting (Global Studies
Research Network).
4. Government Threats During Elections (2004): During the 2004 presidential elections,
many journalists reported being threatened by government officials for their critical coverage.
This period highlighted the ongoing risks faced by media professionals in Romania,
particularly during politically sensitive times. Freedom House has consistently rated Romania
as "partly free" in terms of press freedom, indicating ongoing challenges despite legal
protections for freedom of expression (Politics of European Integration, Lafayette).
These case studies reflect broader issues within Romania’s media landscape, including political
influence, economic pressures, and legislative threats to freedom of speech. Despite constitutional
guarantees, the implementation and protection of these rights often face significant hurdles,
underscoring the need for continued vigilance and advocacy to safeguard journalistic independence
and freedom of expression in Romania.
7. Government response
Romania's government has implemented various actions and policies that impact freedom of speech,
oscillating between protective measures and restrictive practices. Here's an examination of these
efforts:
Protective Measures
1. Constitutional Guarantees: The Romanian Constitution enshrines freedom of speech as a
fundamental right. Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to express ideas,
opinions, and beliefs in any form of public communication. It explicitly prohibits censorship
and ensures the freedom of the press, prohibiting the suppression of any publication (Cdep).
2. Alignment with European Standards: Romania, as a member of the European Union, is
bound by EU directives and international treaties that promote and protect freedom of speech.
The country has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes Article
10 on the freedom of expression (European Journalism Observatory - EJO).
3. Legislative Framework: Several laws aim to protect media freedom and independence. For
instance, the Audiovisual Law regulates broadcasting and aims to ensure a pluralistic media
environment. Additionally, anti-discrimination laws help protect against hate speech while
balancing the need for free expression (Centre for Media Pluralism and Freedom).
Restrictive Practices
1. Social Defamation Law: In 2015, the Romanian Senate passed a controversial law on social
defamation, which imposed heavy fines for defamation of groups and individuals. This law
was widely criticized for its vague definitions and potential to curb freedom of expression.
Although it was eventually not adopted, the proposal highlighted the government's inclination
towards restrictive measures under certain political influences (Global Studies Research
Network) (Sites at Lafayette).
2. Political Influence and Censorship: Political interference in media is a significant issue.
High-profile politicians, such as Liviu Dragnea, have been known to exert pressure on media
outlets to influence coverage. This political interference often leads to self-censorship among
journalists and media organizations, undermining the independence of the press (Global
Studies Research Network) (Sites at Lafayette).
3. Intimidation and Legal Actions Against Journalists: There have been instances where
journalists faced legal actions and intimidation for their investigative work. The case of
Marian Gîrleanu, who was arrested and fined for possessing classified information,
underscores the challenges faced by journalists in Romania. The European Court of Human
Rights ruled in favor of Gîrleanu, highlighting that the Romanian authorities had not
adequately balanced national security concerns with the right to freedom of expression
(Global Freedom of Expression).
4. Surveillance and Privacy Concerns: There are ongoing concerns about government
surveillance and its impact on freedom of speech. Reports suggest that intelligence services,
with remnants of the old Securitate, continue to monitor journalists and political activists,
raising significant privacy and freedom of expression issues (The World from PRX)
(Encyclopedia Britannica).
Conclusion
The Romanian government's actions and policies related to freedom of speech present a complex
picture. While constitutional and legislative frameworks provide strong protections, political influence
and specific legislative attempts have posed significant threats. Continuous efforts from civil society
and international bodies are crucial in advocating for and maintaining the independence and freedom
of the media in Romania.
8. Conclusion
In summary, the state of freedom of speech in Romania today is marked by a
complex interplay of protective constitutional guarantees and persistent threats
from political and economic pressures. The Romanian Constitution robustly
defends freedom of expression, aligning with European standards and
international human rights treaties. These legal frameworks offer a foundation
for a pluralistic and independent media environment (Cdep) (European
Journalism Observatory - EJO).
However, the practical enforcement of these protections often falters due to
political interference and economic vulnerabilities. High-profile cases, such as
Marian Gîrleanu's arrest, illustrate the ongoing challenges journalists face,
including legal intimidation and potential government surveillance (Global
Freedom of Expression) (The World from PRX). Legislative attempts like the
controversial social defamation law further underscore the susceptibility of
media freedom to restrictive measures driven by political motives (Global
Studies Research Network) (Sites at Lafayette).
The media landscape in Romania is diverse but concentrated in the hands of a
few powerful entities, leading to issues of editorial independence and self-
censorship (Centre for Media Pluralism and Freedom) (European Journalism
Observatory - EJO). Despite these challenges, civil society organizations and
international bodies continue to advocate for greater media freedom and
accountability, striving to maintain the democratic values enshrined in the
nation's constitution.
Overall, while Romania has made significant strides in protecting freedom of
speech since the fall of communism, ongoing vigilance and reform are necessary
to address the lingering threats and ensure that the media can operate freely
and independently in the public interest.