Magdalena Majkowska Ordo Iuris: A immense threat to freedom of speech in Poland

That's why Ordo Iuris is working now. The consultation ends in 2 weeks. If the task passes in its current form, the Polish public debate can be censored on the eve of the electoral campaign, which will decide the fates Motherland for years.

If you have not been able to read Mr.Kwasniewski's letter so far – I powerfully encourage you. It's urgent.

As an attorney, Ordo Iuris represented many people before Polish courts who were victims of political and ideological censorship. Let me tell you about 2 of them.

Mrs. Isabella. A sick pensioner from Toruń. Convicted at first instance for criticizing Jerzy Owsiak.

A fewer months ago, I hugged her long after the trial – shaking, barely holding her feet. I'm certain we'll win in second instance. But nothing will take back the fact that the police entered her home at six in the morning and escorted her out in front of her frightened husband.

Mrs. Olivia. Young parent of a year old child. 5 months pregnant. Last week she stood with me in the courtroom. She is facing up to 3 years in prison – for a sincere, emotional speech at the legal anti-immigration demonstration in Zamość.

She testified through tears, in large stress, not indicated in her condition.

That is why defending freedom of speech is so urgent today.

Passivity means consent to censorship, which already ruins the lives of circumstantial people today.

And tomorrow, any of us can be the victim.

Therefore, one more time I ask you to read the following message and support us in this fight.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I presume that this is simply a message of apparent fact for you, and at least a thesis worthy of in-depth discussion and analysis.

Yet, soon, for specified a sentence, each of us may fall victim to net censorship!

Only 2 weeks left. On 10 July, consultation of guidelines on the applicable application of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) will be concluded. The media is silent, and this paper can find the future of freedom of speech in Poland!

The digital service act is sold to us as a tool to clean up the net – to fight illegal content, to cut back on large platforms themselves, to defend the average user.

Reality is different. Eurocrats have put into a single bag content promoting terrorism and force against children and concepts specified as "disinformation" or "talk of hatred". These have for years served radicals to 1 – to silence uncomfortable voices and to push them out of public debate.

In accordance with Article 34 of the DSA, monitoring and censorship are to be subject to content which "may have any negative impact on public debate, electoral process and public security", as well as "any negative impact on gender-motivated violence, public wellness protection" and even on "physical or intellectual welfare".

Effect? Under the appearance of user protection, a device of preventive censorship is built.

The premises are so general that they can service to block many demands and opinions. It is the censors who are to decide what is "a negative impact on public debate" and what will be the message that reconciles "public wellness protection" or "effects on sex violence". Criticism of mass migration, disclosure of the nationality of perpetrators of crimes, opposition to LGBT activists' demands, discussion of sanitary policy during the pandemic – all of this can be censored.

Big platforms like Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube will be faced with a simple choice: censoring for backup or paying draconian penalties – reaching up to 6% of global revenue. We're talking about giant amounts due to the fact that the punishment for Facebook or Instagram is even $6 billion!

Think about how the platform will behave under specified a threat. It's simple. It will remove more content. It will limit more entries. It will censor faster and more zealously. EU experts already propose that the content of an alert should be eliminated at the time of the user's entry into the portal window – before this pushes the "publish" button!

The aim is to remove any entry that could draw the attention of EU censors. due to the fact that it's safer to erase an incorrect political comment than hazard a billion-dollar penalty.

And now the worst: this censorship can work in silence – without your knowledge.

The EU executive papers explicitly let the full arsenal of tools: simplification of coverage, demonetization, informing on content, concealment of comment, suspension of the anticipation of sharing, limitation of profile visibility, photograph from the recommendation, designation of the entry as ‘questionable’. Your voice will not formally disappear. He'll just halt getting to anyone.

The guidelines developed by the European Commission, which look like a method annex, will shortly become a practice applied to millions of Polish users – regardless of where the national implementation of the DSA is.

Only 14 days left. That's why our experts are already working. The paper to be consulted by 10 July will decide how ‘trusted signalling entities’ will be designated.

There are many indications that EU censors will be politically active and financed by the EU or the network of "investigators" and entities identified, for example, by German press agencies. Their judgement will find what content will be considered a threat to the "public debate", "public health", "genderal violence" or "mental prosperity" of migrants and LGBT activists.

Our DSA reports reached national politicians, allies from another EU countries, and even think tanks in Washington and the U.S. State Department. The Censorship is to be forced on American corporations. My article on this subject was published in the influential portal "Brussels Signal".

We are preparing a final analysis to be submitted to the European Commission in the framework of ongoing consultations. We will identify any threat to freedom of expression hidden in the plans of Eurocrats and show that conservative, religious, statements concerning sovereignty, household and life protection have precisely the same right to be present in public as left-wing statements.

I assure you that to the very end we will look at the Eurocrats and take all action to defend freedom of speech in Poland! Anyone who supports our systemic and broad actions will defend their own freedom and political freedom in our homeland.

This week, Ms.Olivia, a young parent of a one-year-old boy (a expecting second child), was brought to justice by Magdalena Majkowska who was accused of publically calling for hatred against racial, national and spiritual differences. She's facing 3 years in prison. The origin of these unfounded accusations was her sincere and emotional speech during the legal anti-immigration demonstration in Zamość. Mrs. Olivia opposed bringing immigrants from hostile cultures into our homeland. She hailed the brutal execution of a 24-year-old female who had been committed a period earlier in Toruń by an immigrant from Venezuela. Mrs. Olivia spoke heartily of her fear for the safety of her own and her child. The speech of a young parent was full of emotion, but it did not call for aggression! The female demanded only a liable migration policy and expressed sincere concerns, which share hundreds of thousands of Polish mothers.

Despite this, politically subordinate to the government, the prosecutors decided to hold a show trial and convict Mrs. Olivia for “a hatred speech”. As a result, a young female in her 5th period of pregnancy had to stand trial on Tuesday, where she testified in large stress and tears in her eyes. Ms Majkowska recalled the importance of guarantees of freedom of speech and categorically demanded acquittal. Criminal liability for public statements should be exceptional and limited to gross cases of incitement to circumstantial aggression.

The D.A.'s demanding a pregnancy parent 10 months' restrictions on freedom. The conviction in this case may be in 2 weeks – 3 months before the date of birth of Mrs. Olivia...

I will keep you informed of the further advancement of this case and assure you that Mrs. Olivia will be able to number on the assistance of the lawyers of the Ordo Iuris Institute to the very end.

Your support is necessary. Not only to cover the costs of nearly a year of defending Mrs Olivia, but besides to systematically combating EU censorship. We must win freedom of speech in order to preserve our political freedom. Everything we do is possible only thanks to the generosity of people like you.

What is the EU's online censorship strategy expected to look like?

The Ordo Iuris Institute has long warned that the European Commission is building a centralised net censorship system. Its aim is to destruct from the debate the voices critical of the Brussels dominant policy of the left. Especially on issues of mass migration and LGBT agenda.

It is simply a strategy that will affect elections in all EU countries, due to the fact that it will drastically make it hard to scope voters with a conservative message. It is not without reason that the EC recommends large online platforms to set up peculiar content moderation teams before each election.

We prove this in our analysis on systemic threats to freedom of expression and the fairness of EU elections resulting from the European Shield of Democracy and the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The implementation of the European Democracy Shield will transform the free net into a heavy moderated space, under the continuous supervision of "independent verifiers". They are to measure which content is in line with EU guidelines, which will be considered as “disinformation” and reported to Facebook, YouTube or X to be removed or muted.

The “moderation of content” introduced is to be officially applied not only to content contrary to the law! Censurs are besides to be subject to information and entries deemed to be ‘disinformation’, ‘hate speech’ and even ‘disaggregating’. It is not hard to figure out what voices the left would want to vote out of social media.

In its Communication on the European Shield of Democracy, the European Commission explicitly acknowledged that it sees social media as "a origin of populism and misinformation". They are confronted by conventional media, where left-wing messages dominate.

The mechanics of this operation is described in a separate analysis, in which we show that the ideas of the Eurocrats go in 2 directions.

- I'm sorry. Firstly, strengthen the marketplace position of conventional media.

- I'm sorry. Secondly, increase the indirect, political impact on them.

Traditional media are to gain triple status: they will be covered by privileges to defend against excessive censorship, will themselves become guardians of access to a narrow group of “trusted signalists” (this EU concept should be translated into Polish as “censor”) and will be considered a model of reliable information to specify “disinformation”.

Imagine a circumstantial situation. The same information is published on their profiles on social networks: a nationwide left-wing newspaper, an independent commentator, a scientist and an average citizen. Only the paper will have the right to prejudice over censorship, the privilege of explaining and precedence appeal. The remainder of the posts can be muted or even removed on the basis of "independent verification" of conventional media.

The 1 who enjoys the privileges will decide... all the reliable, conventional media. It's a closed system.

How this strategy works in practice, we have seen with our own eyes.

At the turn of March and April (with partners from Argentina, Austria, Czech Republic, Spain, Kenya, Germany, Tanzania, the United States and Italy), we co-founded an global election reflection mission in Hungary – the Coalition of Freedom for Free and Honest Elections.

During the campaign, the European Commission first applied the DSA electoral rules. The Commissioners' decision launched the fast consequence strategy (RRS), setting up 44 "trusted facts verifiers". The effect? Cutting coverage and removing conservative social media profiles. Even posts about a real gathering between the Hungarian Prime Minister and the president of the United States were treated as “disinformation”.

In our report, we indicated that the EC was trying to influence elections through grants for NGOs, political activists and the media participating in the campaign. But censorship was a key factor.

I believe it was censorship that led to the fact that the liberal government in Hungary present has a constitutional majority in the parliament.

Attempts to enforce censoric regulations on Poland flow from different directions.

The global Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has criticised the fact that Poland has not introduced a ban on “hate speech” in the Criminal Code due to “sexual orientation” or “gender”.

We have published a legal comment which reminds us that the rules on "talk of hate" did not come into force either due to our actions. Our lawyers warned against them in many studies and published a book more than a year ago. We called on president Andrzej Duda to veto the bill. The president accepted the decision and referred the paper to the Constitutional Court. This 1 ruled that the “talk of hatred” law violates the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

In a separate comment, we reacted to a draft resolution by the Council of Europe calling for the fight against the “talk of hatred” and “disinformation” for which the “anti-gender movements” against the LGBT agenda are to be blamed. We have pointed out that presenting household defenders as a threat to democracy is completely unauthorised. We are calling for the task to be rejected.

Without waiting for the EU censorship system, LGBT activists are trying to silence Poles critical of their program present – with the aid of private indictments.

The Pro – Right to Life Foundation is the victim of this action, which runs the run "Stop pedophilia", in which it displays banners in Polish cities informing about how vulgar LGBT lobby content wants to introduce children. Ordo Iuris lawyers include the Foundation's activists free legal protection. We submit technological papers and papers to the courts of public authorities and global organisations (including WHO), confirming the real content of LGBT subculture requests.

"The Regional Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski acquitted volunteer of the Pro Foundation, whose punishment was demanded by fresh Left activist. The court found that his actions were within the limits of freedom of speech. He besides confirmed the veracity of run slogans. The ultimate Court dismissed the cassation of the private prosecutor, stressing the request for equality between the parties in the public debate.

"The Wrocław territory Court dismissed the civilian suit of the erstwhile LGBT activist – represented by the legal advisor, the policy of the fresh Left, the erstwhile Vice president of Wrocław and the Deputy Minister of Justice. The court confirmed that the information provided by the Foundation was actual and that their public vulnerability was within the limits of freedom of speech.

- The Green Mountain territory Court dismissed proceedings against the Pro Foundation president and volunteer organization. In another akin case, however, the same court sentenced 2 volunteers of the Foundation to 8 months of restrictions on freedom and PLN 3,000 in favour of the Association of the “Institute of Equality” – ignoring the ultimate Court ruling. We will fight to change that conviction before a higher court.

If we do not want to lose the right to tell the fact about the effects of mass migration and the LGBT agenda, we must stand together against the construction of a censorship apparatus – in the country and in the EU.

With the support of the Donors and Friends of Ordo Iuris, our lawyers with full commitment to the weapons of freedom of expression.

We print key analyses and reports to the most crucial decision-makers. We intervene in defence of circumstantial people being repressed for uncomfortable words.

Each of these actions has circumstantial costs.

Most of the measures to defend Mrs. Olivia – a young parent in her 5th period of pregnancy, who is facing up to 3 years in prison for a speech at a demonstration in Zamość – were secured by Ms. Anna Krajewska's individual counsel.

However, we are inactive conducting many another proceedings, for which we must gather the essential resources so that further censorship victims can number on free legal assistance from Ordo Iuris:

Three actions in defence of the right to tell the fact about LGBT demands – a full of PLN 30,000. triumph in each of these cases is simply a blow to the border-funded sex lobby.

One analysis on freedom of expression – at least PLN 10,000. More erstwhile we request to search the cognition of external experts in EU law.

With respect

Adw. Jerzy Kwasniewski - president of the Institute for Legal Culture Ordo Iuris