NVJ, FPU and NDP Warn Against New Law Threatening Press Freedom
amsterdam, dinsdag, 19 augustus 2025.
The Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ), the Federation of Publishers (FPU), and the Dutch Printers and Media Companies (NDP) have raised the alarm over a new law that could enable political persecution of journalists. The organisations express their concerns about the potential negative consequences for press freedom and media independence. According to them, ordinary journalistic activities, such as publishing images or quoting sources, could become criminal offences due to the vaguely worded law. International examples show how similar laws are misused to silence critical voices. The organisations call on the government to withdraw the proposal until clear safeguards and precise definitions are in place.
NVJ, FPU and NDP Warn Against New Law Threatening Press Freedom
The Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ), the Federation of Publishers (FPU), and the Dutch Printers and Media Companies (NDP) have raised the alarm over a new law that could enable political persecution of journalists. The organisations express their concerns about the potential negative consequences for press freedom and media independence. According to them, ordinary journalistic activities, such as publishing images or quoting sources, could become criminal offences due to the vaguely worded law. International examples show how similar laws are misused to silence critical voices. The organisations call on the government to withdraw the proposal until clear safeguards and precise definitions are in place [1].
Vaguely Worded Law with Severe Sanctions
The proposed law makes three forms of expression punishable by up to three years in prison or a fine of ten thousand euros: glorification of terrorism, dissemination of glorifying writings, and public support for terrorist organisations. Due to the broad formulations, ordinary journalistic activities could become criminal offences, such as publishing a photo of the flag of a terrorist organisation or conducting interviews about attacks [1].
Chilling Effect on Public Debate
Public debate over what constitutes support for terrorism shows that opinions on the matter vary widely. Recently, there have been examples of politicians accusing the media of ‘trivialising terrorism’. For instance, Dilan Yesilgöz (VVD parliamentary leader) qualified sharing a photo of a watermelon as support for Hamas, and Geert Wilders (PVV parliamentary leader) described thousands of participants in the Red Line protest as ‘for Hamas’. Caroline van der Plas (BBB parliamentary leader) accused AD, Trouw, and ANP of ‘trivialising terrorism’, and the BBB submitted parliamentary questions after the NOS reported that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was seen by his supporters as a ‘charismatic man’ [1].
Government Motivation and International Examples
The government justifies the need for the law primarily with general references to AIVD reports on radicalisation and inflammatory messages on social media. International examples of the misuse of similar legislation show how such laws can be used to silence critical voices, including journalists. Examples include Ariane Lavrilleux (France), Yoan Jäger-Sthul (France), and Joakim Medin (Turkey), who were prosecuted or monitored [1].
Call to Action
NVJ, FPU, and NDP News Media demand clear definitions, safeguards, urgent necessity, proportional sanctions, and respect for human rights. Until these conditions are met, they urgently request that the government withdraw the bill [1].