Some time ago, something that caused a stir, not only in Greece but worldwide, was the potential implementation of Article Eight (8) of the European Bill. This article was, in turn, renamed by the people and is now widespread as a “terrorist act.” We will not dwell on the reactions caused by the potential implementation of this Bill, since the context we will focus on is how it affects the audiovisual media. We will try to look for possible causes that lead to the proposition as well as to the adoption of such an article.
First of all, let it be understood that the article arrived in our country on February 11, 2021, in order to implement the European plan concerning the audiovisual services. The Bill as submitted to the Greek Parliament, provides the following: Audiovisual media services are not permitted to incite violence or hatred against a group of people or a member of a group, especially because of sex, race, color, ethnic origin, nationality or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or belief, political opinion or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation, as well as to include public provocation to commit a terrorist act, according to articles 187A of the Penal Code, 187Β of the Penal Code and 32 to 35 of Law 4689/2020 (Α’103).
Art itself, whether in the form of theater or music, is an audiovisual medium. Many times artists promote behavioural patterns and attitudes to life through their work. This is a phenomenon that hasn’t occurred today, but it has always been around; however let’s not expatiate on that… Moreover, a crucial factor that determines a pattern as inappropriate (except for special cases) is the subjective one. Each person defines and perceives differently the message that an artist conveys to them and everyone goes a different way after understanding what it stands for.
Let’s expound on what “goes a different way” means. In our daily life we encounter many ideas and viewpoints that concern our fellow human beings. Firstly, it’s impossible to remember all the things we hear and, moreover, some of them come into complete conflict with each other. Therefore, we end up rejecting or accepting some, while others just go unnoticed and we forget them. However, what we need to focus on, is the way we receive stimuli and how they affect our temperament. Simply put, the so-called “filtering.” Each person processes what they see and hear in a different manner. This is completely logical, since each of us was brought up with different values and ideals, while simultaneously we are accompanied by different experiences.
Such a law suggests that messages that promote negativity and phenomena that denigrate today’s society, will no longer be heard in any audiovisual medium. However, the dilemma that arises concerns the effectiveness of this plan, i.e. whether such a thing is appropriate for the prevention of the forenamed fact. Let’s compare our society to a tree, on the branches of which similar fruits are growing outwardly. If someone tastes them, they will realise that some of them are beneficial for their body, whereas others aren’t, as they are poisonous. There are two ways to stop poisonous fruits from growing. The first one is to cut them from the branches one by one. This will certainly reduce the poisoning rates in the short-term, but it doesn’t guarantee that they will not regrow. The second way is to heal the roots by using a higher quality fertilizer, watering them more and in various ways. It’s not certain that something like that will get the best results in the near future, but in the long-term the tree’s fruits will only be beneficial.
This Bill follows the first solution, tracking down artists who are considered to promote “wrong” models and behaviours and imposing sanctions, such as imprisonment. This, however, contains a dose of irony, as there’s no trust towards citizens, so that they can judge and filter the stimuli they receive on their own. Meanwhile, the second solution is directly related to education. By receiving the right principles and ideals, someone will not only choose the right fruit, but they will also not become a fruit that will eventually decay.
I’m trying to convince myself that the purpose of the present Bill is to protect the citizens; but something that should be noted is the fact that such a measure may trigger censorship phenomena. Additionally, the line that separates it from a possible violation of the right to freedom of expression is thin. It certainly is difficult to find a middle ground, but let’s hope that the day after any decision is made, as many citizens as possible will be in accord. After all, “people’s welfare should be the supreme law.” (“Salus populi suprema lex esto”, Cicero)
Photography by Stelios Floros