Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-002529/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Christine Anderson (ESN)
The Commission’s answer of 18 June 2025 to question for written answer E-001160/2025[1] on protecting freedom of expression with regard to automatically generated or published content leaves fundamental questions unanswered. The blanket statement that automatically generated content ‘does not in itself enjoy any protection’ under the fundamental right to freedom of expression fails to recognise the reality of digital forms of communication and ignores the fact that such content is often based on human rules, intentions and editorial concepts. Technological change must not lead to an artificial narrowing of the protection of fundamental rights.
- 1.In the Commission’s view, what is the legal or fundamental rights justification for excluding content that is automatically generated and published according to clearly defined human rules from the protection of freedom of expression – even if it is an expression of human intention and editorial oversight?
- 2.How does the Commission assess the fact that many serious journalistic offerings are also increasingly using automated systems to create and publish content (e.g. weather reports, sports reports or stock market news), and does the Commission recognise that such content can form part of the freedom of expression of the press and the freedom to express one’s opinions?
- 3.Why does the Commission not address the principle that, in cases of doubt – for example, where authorship is unclear – the protection of freedom of expression should be taken as the default instead of automatically deleting content or categorising it as ‘not being protected by fundamental rights’, and does the Commission plan to enshrine such a protection mechanism in existing or future legislation?
Submitted: 24.6.2025
- [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-001160-ASW_EN.html