Art 212 kk, what's next? Debate on Foksal with journalists, CMWP SDP and the Institute for Legal Culture Ordo Iuris

sdp.pl 3 weeks ago

How is simply a suspect a writer expected to win in court erstwhile in this game he gets punches all the time below the belt and it's from a guy who runs with a whistle on that field and decides everything? said ed. Rafał Ziemkiewicz during a joint debate of the Association of Polish Journalists and the Institute for Legal Culture Ordo Iuris. It was besides attended by ed. Ms Anita Gargas and Mr Jerzy Kwasniewski, president of Ordo Iuris. The discussion was led by Dr. Jolanta Hajdas, SDP president and CMWP SDP director. The Institute's study on defamation crime was presented in the course of the report, which besides presents the cases described by CMWP SDP. We thank the SDP for inspiring this study and for our constant cooperation said Jerzy Kwasniewski.

This publication addresses a very crucial issue for the journalistic community, which is the celebrated ‘bat on journalists’, which is Article 212 k.k. In today's world, the thought of punishing individual with a prison for preaching opinion sounds grotesque, but in practice we see more and more frequently how instrumentally they are utilized against freedom of speech civilian actions and how much a criminal code can be utilized in situations of lying and manipulation – assessed Dr. Jolanta Hajdas .

I personally have not changed my negative opinion on 212, and it is peculiarly shocking from my point of view to keep these hearings classified, due to the fact that everything that concerns the media should be public and transparent, but I am besides increasingly proceeding affirmative opinions about this controversial provision. This study presents this issue comprehensively, so I powerfully encourage journalists to read it. The paper is valuable and, of course, I am very glad that you have utilized in this work cases of defamation, especially with Article 212 kk, which was dealt with by CMWP SDP. Thank you so much for that. – stated Jolanta Hajdas addressing the author of the Report, Jędrzej Jabłoński, an analyst of Ordo Iuris.

The study says that “for both applicable and axiological reasons” does not agree to the complete abolition of the criminality of defamation, due to the fact that the defamation of criminal sanctions is actually utilized to enforce the right to the protection of private life, household life, honour and good name.

The another participants in the debate besides spoke about their doubts, although no of them declared themselves to be a clear supporter of leaving Article 212 in the penal code. Maybe it's better for 212 to exist, due to the fact that I think it's better to pay PLN 700 and wait 2-3 years to settle a case than to play civilian procedure, where you gotta pay a lot more and wait for the court to decide for 5-7 years, due to the fact that that's how long it takes said ed. Anita Gargas , investigative writer and multiple winner of the Watergate Award awarded in the SDP Competition.

On the another hand, the threat of being a convicted person, listed in the registry of convicted persons, acts exceptionally negatively on everyone and on the young writer in particular – said Anita Gargas and described the case of conviction red in detail. Mateusz Teski , the author of programs from the series “The Magazine of Anita Gargas”.

Red. Teska was convicted of Art. 212 kk for asking in an email even though he did not even print anything. The case was besides dealt with by the SDP Press Freedom Monitoring Centre, which sent an appeal to president Andrzej Duda to pardon the journalist. The debaters reiterated this appeal unanimously.

Initiating criminal proceedings on this subject is besides easier from the point of view of the average citizen than bringing a civilian action – says Jędrzej Jablonski. Journalists should not be held liable for defamation of their allegations against public persons, even if they cannot prove them full if they show that they acted in accordance with the requirements of due diligence and integrity and that they acted in the social interest. The courts should, in this respect, guarantee that their judgments do not lead to a "freezing effect" and discourage journalists from addressing socially crucial topics – Says the study author.

An investigative writer Anita Gargas took the level during the debate. Almost 30 criminal and civilian trials have been brought against it. She stressed that it was not adequate for the courts that defaming information was allegedly obtained by journalists from prosecutors or public institutions. It is hard to get information that would satisfy the court. It turns out that courts are frequently biased. No argument, no document, no witness relationship, is adequate to defend itself, even if it is simply a full array of supporting evidence said Anita Gargas.

Another panelist was Rafał Ziemkiewicz – a publicist, against whom trials with Art. 212 k.k. were besides brought. In his opinion, "the problem is that from this article 1 can be convicted of telling the truth."

He stressed that this provision is frequently utilized by politicians, both locally and nationally, to silence critical voices. – I do not callback any party, no government and no minister of justice who does not promise to abolish Article 212. It always ended so that the squad that goes to power with this promise to endure this article very rapidly reaches for it to suppress criticism or suppress the flow of information about how it governs said Ziemkiewicz.

Jerzy Kwasniewski pointed out the directions of changes in the application of Article 212 so that it did not affect the freedom of expression of journalists so far. He besides admitted that the problem here is not only the plan of the recipe itself, but besides its explanation by courts.

It is simply a request to make a very advanced standard required to convict someone. There would should be any gross breach of this standard, and only then could individual be convicted of Article 212. The courts have established jurisprudence on what it means to ‘injury’. However, we have serious doubts about the work of the judiciaryPresident Ordo Iuris noted.

The legislator should consider making the following changes to the law: replacing a crime of defamation with slander (consciously speaking falsely) or limiting its scope to gross infringements of due diligence requirements; explicitly excluding from the offence defamation of statements of the nature of assessments or opinions or limiting its scope only to statements relating to the complainant's conduct and not to its jurisdiction – said the author of the Report, Jędrzej Jabłoński.