In their expert opinion on the "Discussion Draft of the Broadcasting Commission of the Federal States for a Sixth Interstate Media Amendment Treaty (6th MÄStV)" revised in November 2023, media legal experts Stephan Dreyer and Wolfgang Schulz discuss remaining questions regarding the legal system and make suggestions for amendments.
You can download the expert opinion here (PDF)
Summary
The draft for a 6th MÄStV retains the central innovations from the draft presented in 2022. This means that the questions of legal feasibility and practicability already discussed in 2022 remain. Insofar as it is the political will to cast the previous considerations into a reformed JMStV, we point out the need for changes in detail in several places to avoid unbalancing the coherence of the approach of regulated self-regulation and the resulting practicable but unstable system of state media authorities with KJM and self-regulation as well as providers. The approach of regulated self-regulation in German youth media protection is not set in stone, but there are no obvious reasons for turning away from the basic regulatory concept - the conditions for creating control advantages through co-regulation still exist, if not even more clearly. Moreover, the draft cannot provide a better interlocking of the already complex regulatory framework for the protection of minors in the media, which has been made even more complex by the DSA. The conceptual understanding of developmental impairment and the assessment of risks to personal integrity remain different, while new (electronic and visual) labeling requirements and the obligation to display content and function descriptors contribute to a whole series of labels that may not only provide parents with guidance, but also create excessive demands and / or a false sense of security.
As mentioned in the last opinion, it is worth noting that the reform does not provide for any strengthening of participatory aspects of child and youth media protection, nor does the draft contain any empowering approaches. It is still about prohibitions and restrictions, not about opportunities and enabling participation that must be guaranteed under children's rights; parents and legal guardians are to remain the exclusive and central authority for implementing protective measures on devices that are usually used quite autonomously and sometimes for highly personal communication. In the light of children's rights, this is a one-sided (and, as shown, presuppositional) approach that only does justice to a very limited extent to the current discussion on the online protection of minors.
(Hamburg, 15 December 2023)
