In the text, we first recall the historical contexts of changes in public education, by recalling them to shape the distance necessary to reflect on the current solstices and transformations taking place in this area. One of the main tasks of a universal and uniform school in a modernizing Europe was to ensure equal educational start for all children. In neoliberal reality, this task ceased to be obvious, and with the significant participation of parents, the foundations of the school’s public character were undermined. Parents from a politically and economically dominant middle class, seeking to gain an advantage over their children, simply do not want public school. The public school defense is therefore easily marginalized. Using the example of recent reforms (e.g. American), we show how schools are no longer places where people belonging to different layers or social classes can create a common world. From this perspective, we analyze issues arising from the questioning of neoliberal social policy that has taken place in recent years. In Poland, it finds expression in, among others in the electoral victory of the grouping (Law and Justice – PiS), aiming to restore the previously overlooked social groups to their rightful place in public space. One could expect that the style of the previous educational policy will therefore be replaced by a more egalitarian, equality policy, preventing unjustifiable selections limiting the life chances of ‘lessborn’ children. However, PiS education policy goes in the opposite direction and expands the system’s selection strategies (elite high schools, no more “mass” access to schools, etc.). Trying to find out the reasons for this contradiction, we focus our attention on the profits that in public discourse brings – as practiced today – the replacement of society by the nation.

The Term “Dignity” – the Concept of Dignity – Dignity: On Some Theoretical Aspects of Recognizing Dignity in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland

The study aims at making explicit the three spheres or planes, essential from the point of view of semiotics, on which the discourse regarding dignity takes place, and at clarifying the relations between these planes. The analysis uses the conception of Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz. There are three principal areas in which the discourse on dignity is conducted – the plane of linguistic expressions on which the name “dignity” is used; the plane of meanings on which the notion of dignity is placed; and the plane of objects on which there is dignity itself. There is a relationship of meaning between the different concepts of dignity and the expression “dignity”, a relationship of signification between expression “dignity” and dignity as its referent, and a relationship of apprehension between the concepts of dignity and their referents.

An important argument in favour of recognising the cultural relativism and against universality of dignity and human rights, is the claim that the concept of dignity is a genuinely modern one. An analysis of a passage from the Demiurge’s speech in Timaeus reveals that Plato devoted time to reflecting on the question of what determines the qualitative difference between certain beings (gods and human being) and the world of things, and what forms the basis for the special treatment of these beings – issues that using the language of today can be described reasonably as dignity. The attributes of this form of dignity seem to overlap with the nature of dignity as we know it today. Moreover, Plato proposes a response both to the question of what dignity is like, as well as the question of what dignity is. It is existential perfection, rooted in a perfect manner of existence, based on a specific internal unity of being. Dignity is therefore primordial in regard to particular features and independent of their acquisition or loss. Plato’s approach allows him to postulate that people be treated as ends in themselves; an approach therefore that prohibits the treatment of people as objects. Both the state and law are ultimately subordinated to the good of the individual, rather than the individual to the good of the state.

The article examines the mechanisms of defamation in the internet space, social media and Facebook in particular. Human dignity is protected both as a constitutional value and as an individual right, though in everyday practice law-enforcement bodies usually tend to be unwilling to react to violations of human dignity, while appropriate legal provisions are often not in place to be implemented. Actions taken by the police in investigating appropriate cases do not always manage to identify perpetrators or bring them to justice. Most internet or cyber crime occurs across international borders and can be committed anonymously. There are certain types of defamatory statements that are considered to harm the reputation of the victim. Libel in the internet involves cyberbullying, online harassment, cyber-stalking, and, most of all, internet trolls. Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the credibility of others, often involving petty arguments. People tend to lose control of their emotions when they go online. An explosion of raw and unbridled emotions follows, standards wane, and eventually some internet users lose their touch with reality. Cyber violence and online harassment are punishable crimes and are subject to criminal prosecution: defamation, libel and online threats. Stalking and vulgar language in public places are offences subject to public prosecution and the provisions of the Petty Offences Procedure Code. . Generally, a defamatory statement published to third parties has to be proved and it has to be proved that the publisher knew or should have known that the statement that they made which harmed the reputation was false. The good name or reputation of another can be damaged, or even totally destroyed, in a number of ways. To calumniate another is certainly to ruin a person’s or a company their good name and so to do them an injustice. The number of criminal offences under Article 212 has increased four times over the past ten years.

The Freedom of Association as a Form of Meeting Human Social Needs

The individual’s use of freedom of association has a significant impact on various aspects of human existence. Its existence determines the opportunity to meet needs and makes it possible to strive to achieve assumed goals together with other people. The interpersonal nature of this type of interaction has consequences. The article aims to demonstrate that the freedom of association affects not only the way in which an individual’s political needs are met, but also the satisfaction of social values and human development. The opportunities that the right to freedom of association brings are derived not only from the organizational forms that individuals can use but also from their individual needs, which this value aims to fulfill.

Migration Panic and Migrants Dignity

The aim of so-called moral panics is to effectively influence the assessment of phenomena and the attitudes of individual people. The tools for its induction are media-manipulated information and its uncritical recipients. In recent decades, these efforts have concerned the increasingly intense phenomenon of global human migration. Although it refers to only 3–4% of the total population, it provokes exceptionally strong controversies, creating specific forms of so-called migration panic. Instead of a reliable discussion about migrants and refugees, their rights and obligations, and their inherent and inalienable human dignity, manipulated public opinion perpetuates hardly humane thinking and action. It insults strangers in a dangerously aggressive way against existing natural and positive law, ethical and religious requirements.