The Journalist’s Obligation of Special Care and Diligence in Collecting and Using Press Materials

The aim of the article is to establish the content of the concept of special diligence indicated in art. 12 sec. 1 of the Press Law, the obligation to exercise due diligence in collecting and usage press materials. The content of Art. 355 § 2 of the Civil Code as specifying what the diligence is expected from professionals. It was considered whether the exercise of “due diligence” in collecting the materials would exclude the unlawfulness of the journalist’s actions, if it turned out that, despite this diligence, false information was provided. The effects of failure to exercise due diligence in the matter of journalist’s liability were discussed, based on the analysis of jurisprudence that due diligence is required at all stages of collecting and usage press materials. The problem of due diligence was confronted with the journalist’s actions in defense of an important social interest.

The author analyses presumption of innocence in the media’s reporting of the judicial procedures. The principle of presumption of innocence says that the accused will be considered not guilty, unless his guilt will be proved in the final judgment of the court. This principle is written down in art. 42.2 of the Polish Constitution and art. 5 § 2 of the criminal procedure code. The above principle concerns all people, i.e. authorities of criminal process, police, administration agencies and even simple citizens. The Polish press law prohibits publication of personal data of the accused without the consent of public prosecutor or court as well as data of the injured person and witnesses without their consent. The press law also prohibits to prejudge the guilt of the accused before his conviction by the court of first instance. Alas, there are numerous cases of violation of such rules. Today one observes the increasing process of infotainment of mass media becoming more and more tabloid. They have a negative influence on realization of principle of presumption of innocence in everyday practice.

Form of an artistic expression, satire has been present in human’s life for ages. It has many varieties and forms. From the very beginning its practitioners have been subjected to the public authorities restrictions and have been getting into trouble with the ones who became objects of the artist projections. In Polish regulation – law, there is a justification of admissible satire, covered by the article 41 of the press law, witch is an extension to the justification of admissible criticism, covered by the article 213 of the polish penal code. However, there is no such thing as justification of art. due to this fact, the artist may be fully liable both for violation of personal rights and the offence of defamation.

Problematyka tytułu prasowego, a zwłaszcza jego ochrony budzi spore wątpliwości natury teoretycznej, ale także praktycznej. Po pierwsze już chociażby z tego tytułu, że pojęcie tytułu prasowego nie zostało zdefiniowane w ustawie z dnia 26 stycznia 1984 r. Prawo prasowe54, ani w żadnym innym akcie normatywnym. Po wtóre, problematyka ochrony prawnej tytułu prawnego może być rozpatrywana z różnych perspektyw. Może to rodzić wątpliwości co do różnych źródeł udzielanej ochrony prawnej, a tym samym konieczności spełnienia innych przesłanek takiej ochrony przewidzianych przez odrębne regulacje. Należy jednak podkreślić, iż z samego faktu rejestracji dziennika lub czasopisma nie przysługuje żadne prawo podmiotowe. Jest to jedynie uprawnienie o charakterze formalnym. Nie oznacza to jednak, że tytuł prasowy nie może być przedmiotem obrotu cywilnoprawnego. W praktyce tytuł najczęściej będzie przysługiwał wydawcy, ale nie jest to regułą. Tytuł prasowy może być chroniony skutecznie na innych podstawach np. jako utwór w oparciu o przepisy prawa autorskiego, bądź na płaszczyźnie przepisów prawa cywilnego zapewniających ochronę dóbr osobistych, ewentualnie jako znak towarowy, wreszcie przepisami o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji.

This article analyzes the penal provisions of the press law when considering the issue of responsibility for the publication of press material. It presents the cases of the notification of the violation of press law, joint and several responsibility of the press, contratyp of press criticism, satire, cartoons and press reports, the limitation of liability of the press, the question of exerting pressure on journalists and on press criticism, press publishing without registration, avoiding the publication of official announcements and arrest warrants, distribute materials of the case, a crime of an admission to the publication, as well as some questions relating to the proceedings for violation of press law.

Censorship is a special case of media control. In the authoritarian system it is preventive censorship as well as press licensing that constitute a characteristic symptom of this control. In law, the notion of censorship has not been defined: therefore one has to refer to doctrines and jurisdiction. In the Polish law, a clear ban on preventive censorship, understood as making publishing or broadcasting a certain message dependent on the prior consent of a public authority, was included in Article 54 Section 2 of the Constitution. This regulation constitutes, in the area that it regulates, a development and confirmation of the freedom of the press and other media rule expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Additional provisions of the press’s freedom of speech in the context discussed here are formulated in Article 3 of the Press Law. Although it does not refer directly to preventive censorship, the ban it expresses is supposed to prevent the actual infringement on the freedom of the press by preventing its print and distribution. As for the issues discussed here, what may be controversial is the approach limiting the introduction of preventive censorship only to public administration institutions. The Constitutional Tribunal in its verdict from 20 July 2011, referring to the use of publication ban within proceedings to secure claims in claims against mass media concerning the protection of personal rights (Article 755 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure) stated that the judicial power is not the administrative power. Therefore, the courts’ activity cannot be considered as using censorship, but rather as monitoring the law being obeyed in the preventive meaning. And as for the regulations included in the European Convention on Human Rights, its Article 10 (as well as its other regulations) does not directly refer to the issue of controlling or obstructing publications, especially press releases. This question, however, has been the subject of many rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.