Prepared by Flutura Kusari and Mogens Blicher Bjerregård
On 28 January 2025, the Danish Media Liability Committee published a report aiming to strengthen legal protections of its citizens in the digital age. Established on 25 August 2024 by Denmark’s Ministry of Culture, the committee’s mandate stems from both the Media Agreement 2022-2025, made under the former government, and the Media Agreement 2023-2026, signed under the current government. The report seeks to modernise the framework for governing media, including strengthening legal protections online.* One of the recommendations concerns setting up a publicly funded Danish Media Ombudsperson.
The proposed Danish Media Ombudsperson would possess dual powers that directly influence editorial content, including the ability to report defamation and libel cases to the police and to investigate these cases independently, similar to the Danish Consumer Ombudsperson’s authorities. Furthermore, the Ombudsperson could intervene as a third party in civil cases, expanding participation beyond plaintiffs, defendants, and legally interested parties. The institution would also have access to state-funded legal aid for cases within its remit.
The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) firmly opposes the establishment of a Danish Media Ombudsperson with broad powers concentrated within a single, state-appointed and state-funded institution. Such centralisation poses a serious threat to media freedom and editorial independence. Allowing a state-funded and state-appointed body to exert direct influence over legal proceedings and editorial decisions risks eroding the vital separation between the state and the press. This development could lead to increased censorship, self-censorship, and a chilling effect on free speech, ultimately undermining the media’s democratic role as a watchdog and a platform for diverse voices. The introduction of a state-appointed Ombudsperson would irreparably harm Denmark’s current effective system of regulation, which is managed through the Press Council.
ECPMF’s arguments opposing the Danish Media Ombudsperson
Beyond the committee’s mandate – the proposal exceeds the committee’s mandate. According to the Media Responsibility Committee’s terms of reference, the committee was tasked with investigating how an Ombudsperson could be established based on the Swedish model. Since the Swedish Ombudsperson does not hold such powers, this proposal goes beyond the committee’s clearly defined remit.
Weakening of the role of Danish Press Council – according to the Media Responsibility Committee’s report, the Danish media Ombudsperson would have the authority to refer cases to the Press Council and even recommend that the Press Council rule a publication violates good press practice. In practice, this means a state-appointed body could file complaints on behalf of concerned parties and seek to influence the decisions of an independent Press Council. This risks compromising the independence of the Press Council and weakening the entire framework that protects free and responsible journalism in Denmark.
Concerns regarding criminal law powers – the proposed Danish Media Ombudsperson’s competence to report defamation and libel cases directly to the police and independently investigate these matters represents a dangerous expansion of criminal law powers. This risks bypassing important legal safeguards currently in place. We support the minority opinion expressed by Mr. Stig Kirk Orskov, which argues that Section 28 of the Media Liability Act— which mandates the Director of Public Prosecution to decide on charges by public authorities —should remain in effect. This provision serves as a crucial check, limiting the use of public prosecution against Danish media and protecting freedom of expression from undue legal pressure. Granting the Ombudsperson such prosecutorial influence threatens to undermine these protections and could lead to increased legal intimidation of journalists and media outlets.
Media Ombudsperson vs. Consumer Ombudsperson – the Danish media Ombudsperson should not be modeled after the Consumer Ombudsperson, as their roles are fundamentally different. The Consumer Ombudsperson focuses on regulating business practices and can impose restrictions, while a press freedom Ombudsperson should have the task to prevent censorship, promote free speech, and uphold media freedom standards in public discourse. These are very different competences by nature and should not be conflated.
Unclear industry support – the report claims that the majority of media representatives in the Media Liability Committee support the creation of the Media Ombudsperson. However, the media outlet Journalisten** contacted committee members and found that a majority actually expressed skepticism. Therefore, it is unclear whether the creation of such a body has full support from its members. Such a significant change should only proceed if it receives strong backing from the industry.
ECPMF’s Recommendations
- We urge the Government of Denmark to reject the recommendation of the Media Liability Committee to establish a state-appointed and state-funded Danish Media Ombudsperson as presented in the current model.
- We call on the Government and other Danish authorities to continue the dialogue with journalists, media organisations, and civil society aimed to ensure that any proposed changes to the media regulatory framework are developed with respect to the independence of the functioning of the Press Council and with broad consensus and strong support from the media sector and all other relevant stakeholders.
- We strongly encourage the Government to actively engage and collaborate with the Council of Europe to guarantee that any modifications to media regulation fully comply with established European standards and best practices.
