Why the GDPR Still Thinks We Live in a Newspaper World. Europea…
In this blog entry for the DCU Law & Tech Research Cluster, author Emilianio Vitaliani explores the growing tension between data protection and freedom of expression under the GDPR, focusing on the “journalistic exemption” that allows certain data processing for journalistic purposes. He argues that while the exemption is intended to preserve press freedom, European courts have interpreted it through an increasingly outdated understanding of how public discourse functions.
The author examines key cases such as Satamedia and Google Spain, showing how the courts have largely confined the exemption to traditional journalism. In doing so, they have excluded activities such as publishing raw information or operating search engines, despite these playing a crucial role in enabling public access to information and shaping modern public debate.
Vitaliani contends that this narrow approach fails to reflect today’s decentralized public sphere, where citizens, researchers, bloggers, activists, influencers, and digital platforms all contribute to the creation, dissemination, and interpretation of information. He argues that many forms of expression with significant public value are left without adequate protection simply because they fall outside conventional definitions of journalism.
The author concludes that the balance between privacy and freedom of expression should focus less on whether an activity qualifies as journalism and more on the role it plays in democratic public discourse. He notes that recent decisions, such as Buivids, suggest European courts are already moving toward a more functional approach—one that better reflects the constitutional importance of public participation in the digital age.
