The EU demands an internet quality mark and and an observing media ombudsmand, which opens up for wider censorship.
They already have this system in Sweden , the press ombudsmand(woman) now wanting to notify the police , when she thinks people are going beyond the limits of political correctness. She would not hesitate to notify about cartoons like those of Jyllandposten´s . "This is going too far", she said.
I have read, that in Sweden you have to register your blog to the State Radio, if you want to be “ protected” under the Swedish “freedom  of expression”.
In the end, the purpose of this is to maintain the EU "Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia" opening up for 3 years of imprisonment for criticising Islam!

Estonian Socialist Marianne Mikko has drafted a Motion for  a European Parliament Resolution against the concentration of and on  pluralism in the media in the European Union (2007/2253(INI) on behalf of the EU Committee on Culture and Education. In itself a positive feature, but.

Suggests in this respect the creation of independent media ombudsmen in the Member
3. Welcomes the efforts to create a charter for media freedom and strive for its Europe-wide
4. Stresses the need to institute monitoring and implementation systems for media pluralism
based on reliable and impartial indicators;

Suggests clarifying the status, legal or otherwise, of weblogs and encourages their "voluntary labelling" according to the professional and financial responsibilities and interests of their authors and publishers;
It recommends clarification of the legal status of different categories of weblog authors and publishers as well as disclosure of interests and "voluntary" labelling of weblogs.

"According to a new report for parliament's Culture Committee a minority of bloggers with malicious intentions or hidden agendas pose a danger . It calls for a voluntary code to identify the interests of the authors, clarification of their legal status and an ombudsman to guarantee media freedom.  Speaking about her report, Ms Mikko told us "the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them".

Asked if she considered bloggers to be "a threat", she said "we do not see the bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace".
She added, "I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why."

German Liberal Jorgo Chatzimarkakis acted as advisor for the Economic and Monetary committee. He told us that "bloggers cannot automatically be considered a threat, but imagine pressure groups, professional interests or any other groups using blogs to pass on their message. Blogs are powerful tools, they can represent an advanced form of lobbyism, which in turn can be seen as a threat".
He said "any blogger representing or expressing more than their personal view should be affected by this report."  

 Here is a funny comment which I fully agree with  on the excellent Blog “EU Referendum” .
“Tremble, oh ye bloggers. The European Parliament
is debating whether there should be a control on bloggers with "malicious intent" or "hidden agenda". Well, we can relax. Our agenda is not hidden. We are full of malicious intent towards the European Union and all its many minions. I wonder if they mean us. Surely not.

“ I find myself somewhat in agreement with Ms Mikko (if this continues I might have to consult a doctor). There are, indeed, bloggers out there who pollute the blogosphere with "too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent". Let me remind our readers of Fragrant Margot (Wallström) and her terminally boring blog. Should there not be a quality mark, a rather black one, awarded to this torrent of sludge?

There are other Commissars with blogs. It seems perfectly obvious that none of these can qualify for that quality mark that Ms Mikko is yearning to issue. They do have an agenda "! And I might add: and a malicious and hidden one!

But behind all this, the EU intention is clear enough: It wants to decide what can be brought as “serious” manipulated EU propaganda and “cyberspace pollution”, i.e. telling the truth about the EU´s dictatorship.
That is what the EU means by “media freedom”.

Now who really has “malicious intentions” : The increasing number of  multicultural assailants not mentioned in the media – or the blogs which tell about the assailants, the pump behind their increasing number, i.e. the EU , or the media which are as silent as oisters about these criminal persons and their backer, the EU?