Media freedom: transmitters of secret messages should no longer be punished

When the Federal Council wanted to repeal the article in 1996, it described it as offensive "that the third party who disclosed the secret is convicted, while the civil servant or parliamentarian who broke the secret often escapes prosecution". Before Parliament was able to debate the abolition of the article, two articles appeared in the Sonntagszeitung at the beginning of 1997 with excerpts from a confidential strategy paper on the dormant assets of Ambassador Carlo Jagmetti. The affair had a significant impact on the debates of the two councils. As a result, they did not want to do without the article.

Abolition in the name of media freedom

On the basis of a parliamentary initiative by former National Councillor Josef Lang (Greens/ZG), Parliament will once again address the controversial article. Lang is once again calling for the article to be abolished because it restricts media freedom. However, the majority of the responsible legal committee wants to continue to protect the official opinion-forming process. Instead of deleting the article, it proposes adding to it: Judges should now be able to weigh up the interest of secrecy against the interests of the public. This should bring Swiss case law into line with that of the European Court of Human Rights. Media professionals, on the other hand, are vehemently in favor of repealing the article in the consultation on Lang's proposal, which has now come to an end. The Swiss section of Reporters Without Borders (ROG) criticizes the fact that the article is based on a formal definition of secrecy.

Old braid from the cold war

"Journalists can therefore be convicted on the basis of the article without the information they publish being materially secret and therefore having to be kept secret." The "weakened version" of the article proposed by the Legal Affairs Commission would jeopardize the community's constitutional right to information. For the Syndicom trade union, this "old braid" should be abolished without replacement. It disregards the social and political change in mentality in dealing with official secrets and with the state and is "stuck in the spirit of the Cold War". The Legal Commission's proposal would shift the problem to the courts, which would have to weigh up difficult legal interests. This hardly takes sufficient account of legal certainty.

Open outcome in parliament

Both the professional association Impressum and Arbus, the association for critical media use, want nothing more to do with the article. "The media on all channels should in particular be able to exercise their watchdog function vis-à-vis the state and its authorities without hindrance," writes Arbus in its statement. However, opinions differ among the parties whose representatives will decide on the retention, deletion or amendment of Article 293 of the Criminal Code. The SP supports the media representatives. The CVP supports the addition of the article as a compromise. The SVP and FDP are in favor of the status quo. According to the SVP, the removal of the article would "result in a gap in the protection of secrets". (SDA)