Europe’s Free Press on Trial: SLAPPs and the Fight for Media Freedom

Photo : European Parliament

Press freedom is one of the founding pillars of democracy: when it is threatened, democratic life suffers. Across Europe, journalistic freedom is under pressure, not only from political actors but also from economic and legal mechanisms that limit what the media can investigate and say. Non‑governmental organisations such as Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House, which regularly monitor these threats and advocate for journalistic freedom, have highlighted the spread of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) across the EU, especially in countries like Italy.

Funding cuts and political control

According to an RSF (Reporters Without Borders) report from July 2025, the European region remains relatively “free” and safe for journalists, yet it is hard to ignore that public service media in Europe are facing multiple pressures. For example, funding of public service media is increasingly being challenged. In Europe, the funding of public media can generally be either completely public, through licence fees paid by citizens, drawn from the state budget, or funded by mixed models that combine public and private resources. Licence fees often become targets of austerity measures or of populist governments that promise to reduce taxation. In such cases, the proposed alternative is to fund public broadcasters directly from the state budget, but this can be problematic when no other long‑term measures are put in place to guarantee a sufficient level of funding. As a result, funding risks being renegotiated year after year, making public media economically fragile and overly dependent on political decisions. In Slovakia, for example, the licence fee was replaced by a share of state revenue linked to GDP. Under current President Robert Fico, the rate was lowered from 0.17 to 0.12 percent, leading to a 30 percent reduction in the budget of the public broadcasting group RTVS compared with the amount provided for by the previous system (RSF July 2025 report). 

Politically, when the media are not protected and are left to the discretion of governments, they risk becoming a mouthpiece for the government. Hungary is a striking example, as Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has created a vast pro-government media network since 2010. The market is indeed highly concentrated around the KESMA foundation, which includes 500 media outlets and receives about 85% of state advertising funds. This scenario leaves little space for pluralistic debate. 

The chilling effect of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation 

Beyond the public sector, SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) represent another growing threat to press freedom in Europe. SLAPPs are a type of lawsuit used to intimidate and silence critics by dragging them into lengthy and costly legal proceedings, often pushing them to stop their investigations or public criticism. They are usually disguised as civil or criminal complaints, often justified by claims of defamation, but are in fact an abuse of the legal system. SLAPPs also reveal a power imbalance, as they are usually filed by wealthy, influential individuals, especially politicians and businessmen, against journalists, media outlets, NGOs, academics, researchers and activists who publicly criticise or investigate them. The goal is not to win the lawsuit, but to discourage criticism and force critics to abandon their public statements by placing a heavy financial and mental burden on them and damaging their reputation. This phenomenon is therefore costly and time-consuming for the individual who is sued, and it leads to stress and self-censorship. It also has consequences for other journalists, who may become more cautious and avoid “sensitive topics”. These types of lawsuits are on the rise in Europe: the report by the NGO Coalition against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) shows that 1303 SLAPP cases have been documented since 2010, with 167 filed in 2024 alone. The documented cases are only the façade of the problem, because most censorship is already achieved at the pre‑litigation stage through aggressive legal threat letters and cease‑and‑desist demands. 

Italy between RAI and SLAPPs

Italy’s situation illustrates both political pressure on public broadcasting and the rise of SLAPPs. In the 2025 RSF index, Italy ranks 49th, worse than in 2023 (41st) but slightly better than in 2022 (58th). Since Giorgia Meloni’s far-right government came to power, journalists have described growing pressure from the management of public broadcaster RAI (Radiotelevisione Italiana) management to avoid certain topics. For example, on the occasion of the anniversary of Italy’s liberation from Nazi‑Fascist occupation on 25 April 2024, writer Antonio Scurati was scheduled to read an anti‑fascist monologue on the channel Rai 3, but his appearance was cancelled at the last minute due to an alleged “economic disagreement”. The host of the programme “Che sarà” read the planned text on herself, and was then temporarily suspended by RAI for breaching the broadcaster’s confidentiality rules. The incident sparked debate about the weakening of press freedom in Italy. In addition, the Parliamentary Committee for the oversight of RAI, an Italian body in charge of monitoring impartiality, pluralism, and the respect for public service guidelines, was blocked for one and a half years due to right-wing boycotts. This issue is particularly problematic given that Italy held a constitutional referendum at the end of March, a moment when the Oversight Committee should have guaranteed balanced and clear coverage, ensuring adequate space for both the “yes” and “no” sides. 

SLAPP‑type lawsuits are particularly common in Italy. In 2024 alone, Italy recorded 21 such cases, more than any other EU country and ahead of Germany (20) (CASE report 2025). Surely, the outdated Italian legal framework on defamation doesn’t help. Politicians and public officials initiate nearly half of these actions (43 percent), followed by companies and lawyers, while journalists are the main targets in 44 percent of cases. High‑profile examples include the tourism minister Daniela Santanchè suing L’Espresso for 5 million euros, the minister Adolfo Urso taking legal action against Il Foglio and Il Riformista for between 250,000 and 500,000 euros, and the two environmental activists Roberto Malini and Lisetta Sperindei, sued by the energy company Fox Petroli S.p.A. for 2 million euros over their criticism of a gas project. 

How is the EU protecting media freedom? 

At the EU level, media freedom is being strengthened by the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which entered into force on 7 May 2024 and whose main goals are to protect media independence and pluralism, to guarantee editorial freedom, and to safeguard journalists’ sources. Complementing this, the EU Anti‑SLAPP Directive (EU) 2024/1069, in force since 16 April 2024, protects individuals who speak out from manifestly unfounded or abusive lawsuits. This means, for example, that individuals targeted by a SLAPP can request the early dismissal of any claims that are deemed to be without merit and, if the court determines the proceedings to be abusive, it may require the claimant to bear the legal costs. The Directive, however, applies only to cross‑border cases, even though over 90% of SLAPPs are internal. The European Commission has therefore encouraged Member States to extend these safeguards to purely domestic disputes as well, through recommendation 2022/758. On 10 January 2026, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni confirmed that Italy will transpose the Directive by the 7 May 2026 deadline. However, she stated that the government will not broaden its scope to national cases, because the text itself limits it to cross‑border matters. 

The EMFA and the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive are important steps forward, yet their real impact will depend on how firmly national governments apply and expand these protections. Until then, the independence of the press remains quite fragile and journalists will need both legal safeguards and political courage.