National Broadcasting Council as a guardian of freedom of speech in radio and television

National Broadcasting Council is the regulatory body competent in radio and television broadcasting. The National Broadcasting Council aims are described in the Constitution and they concern safeguarding the freedom of speech, the right to information as well as safeguarding the public interest regarding radio broadcasting and television (Article 213 [1]). These are three interests the National Broadcasting Council is obligated to protect. The provisions of Constitution find their reflection in the Broadcasting Act that repeats that the National Broadcasting Council safeguards the freedom of speech in radio and television broadcasting, protects the independence of media providers and the interests of the public, as well as ensures an open and pluralistic nature of radio and television broadcasting (Article 6 [1]). The way of carrying out the above-mentioned tasks by the National Broadcasting Council causes that this body is described as a censor. It is criticized for carrying out its functions in an excessive way that is by commencing unnecessary proceeding against broadcasters. Such way of interpreting provisions of the Broadcasting Act by the National Broadcasting Council creates uncertainty of broadcasters and their conviction of the necessity of moderating the mode of expression or avoiding some subjects which they consider as being more controversial. It is also emphasized in case the National Broadcasting Council politicization its control tasks can be carried out in order to impose a specific concept of morality upon broadcasters.

The Right to Participate in a Referendum in the Context of Freedom of Expression and the Right to Resume Legal Proceedings Initiated During the Referendum Campaign

In this paper, the author has focused on the freedom of speech during the referendum campaign, its limits and the consequences of crossing those limits. She emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights against unreliable information during the campaign. She considers accelerated referendum proceedings as a mechanism to prevent the negative effects of the dissemination of false information that may affect the outcome of the referendum. She refers to the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal that confirmed to the possibility of the resumption of referendum procedure and its consequences.

The constitutional system in Poland covers one of the most important values which is freedom of speech. Due to the regulatory dualism treating the media market also as an important element of the creative industry, freedom of economic activity becomes important in this area. Currently, the implementation of both of these values is influenced by the development of new technologies, which determine the need to adapt legal regulations to them. The basis for the operation of the media is the freedom of speech referred to in the Art. 14 and 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland3. The exercise of these freedoms may be limited in strictly defined situations and must be provided for by law (Art. 31 (3) of the Polish Constitution). Therefore, one cannot speak of an unhampered freedom of action by the media. However, is this rule relevant to the challenges of the changing world and developing virtual reality? In view of modern changes in the principles of creating and using information, the existing rules of media functioning should be verified, without excluding legal instruments which task is to ensure a balance in the relationship between the use of freedom of speech and the protection of its beneficiaries against unauthorized actions. The article presents the issue of the application of the legal instrument of the press title register on the example of a blog4.

The First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution prohibits any abridgment of the freedom of speech. According to the consistent line of the Supreme Court’s precedents, dating from 1931, the term “speech” encompasses non-verbal expressive conduct. Granting such symbolic speech constitutional protection can be justified with phenomenological, axiological, and historical arguments. Nevertheless, the constitutional jurisprudence regarding symbolic speech has so far been a little inconsistent and haphazard. The article proposes an adjudicative model that could be applied to all symbolic speech cases, bringing greater coherence and predictability to judicial decisions in this area. The suggested procedure comprises five basic steps: preliminary analysis (assessing basic features of the law in question independent of any First Amendment-specific enquiries), application of the “Spence test”, application of the doctrine of a categorical exclusion, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.

Cyberspace seems to be ubiquitous. It coexists with the real world and it constitutes its coded zero-one reflection. However, it deprives us of privacy, our constitutional right. Even more, the modern technology allows our fingerprint to be traced forever. Problems with maintaining online privacy in the face of the phenomenon of identity theft for criminal purposes, or the use of our data for property purposes in the broadly understood internet marketing.

The subject of the article is references to the truth in the constitutions of modern states. The comparative study shows multiplicity of contexts in which the category of truth is mentioned in several dozen fundamental laws. The mention of truth in the constitutions as a component of the axiology of the legal and social order, the basis of transitional justice or the principle of court and administrative proceedings should be assessed positively. However, making the truth a limit of freedom of speech raises serious reservations. Granting constitutional protection only to truthful statements can stifle the public debate on socially prominent issues. The conducted analysis does not confirm the thesis of political liberalism that the truth is irrelevant for law and politics.

Nowadays, the concept of digital media, is nothing new. The article refers to the conditions of legal change implied by the vast progress and revolutionary digital transformation that has taken place when the media, which are an integral part of the communication process, have entered the realm of image culture, a sphere where they obliterate traditional modes of communication, creating a new sphere of influence, without a clear separation between the sender and the receiver. Hence, digital content has become the basis for the construction of a new system of axiology, so relevant in terms of constitutional values.

The COVID-19 pandemic made the authorities of many countries take extraordinary steps to prevent the new disease from spreading. They were not limited to improving the operation of healthcare but also extended to a range of areas of social and political life. That resulted in restrictions to fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms. A number of doubts voiced in the public debate in this connection encourage a scientific consideration of the legal aspects of restricting the rights and freedoms in connection with the pandemic. This paper is aimed at presenting disinformation as a hazard to the right to the freedom of speech, constitutionally protected in democratic states.

Among the laws regulating the press activity, the main one is the obligation to register a daily newspaper or a magazine (Article 20 of the Press Law). The registration application should include the data listed in that Article. Giving the role of a registrating body to the courts and not an administrative body, due to their independent nature, fosters the implementation of the free press rule formulated in Article 14 of the Constitution and developed in Article 1 of the Press Law. The ban on preventive censorship and press licensing is included directly in Article 54 Section 2 of the Constitution (this regulation, however, allows introducing by an Act of Parliament an obligation to obtain a license to run a radio or TV station). The registration mode is a kind of broadly understood application system and it is not included in the press licensing model. Nor does it have anything to do with preventive censorship. Regulations of the Code of Civil Procedure on non-litigious proceedings apply for registration procedure, together with alterations resulting from the Press Law. Magazine registration has two main functions: 1) protecting the name of no longer existing press titles (at the same time protecting the publisher’s right for the press title); 2) protecting the interests of potential readers. The latter case concerns preventing the reader from being misled about the true identity of a given newspaper. The Constitutional Tribunal noticed that the regulation concerning the registration mode is a limitation of the freedom of speech. However, the Tribunal did not find such a limitation that would breach Article 54 Section 1 or Article 31 Section 3 of the Constitution. Publishing a newspaper or a magazine may be suspended if in a given newspaper or magazine the law has been broken at least three times in a year, which has been confirmed by a valid criminal judgment. The regulations do not stipulate the option of cancelling the registration. It is, however, possibile that its validity may expire. According to Article 45 of the Press Law, in force since 19 July 2013, a person publishing a newspaper or a magazine without a license or suspended is subject to a fine. Currently such actions consitute a misdemeanour, and not an offence.

The text examines standards of freedom of speech stipulated by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The focus is on political expression, which deserves the greatest scope of protection according to Western norms determined by the jurisprudence of the mentioned court and the Supreme Court of the United States. In this connection, the latter has significantly influenced the case-law of the former. The text under discussion analyses the problem from the perspective of the case of Ziembiński versus Poland (2), 2016.

The continuous development of technology actually does not allow for the creation of a uniform definition of the media, but the redefinition of the notion of media is necessary. The broadcasters – institutions that have played an essential role have lost their importance as a major player in the media market. They take the position of content providers, and the media users (the auditorium, as widely defined today) and they also do not limit their position to the role of the consumers of the content. Through the availability of various materials, the recipients do not have to be limited now to one broadcaster who can affect the perception of the problem or event. This change was caused by the opportunity of the interaction between the broadcaster and the user. The recipient does not feel just a passive listener, but can actively participate in the creation of media content and thereby substantially influence the content transmission. This issue is important in the situation where the media are required for specific actions, eg. in case of threats and emergencies. The question which arises here is what kinds of media should fullfil such obligations and to what extent you can limit the freedoms and fundamental rights of individuals in the area of communication.

The offense against religious feelings expressed in the text of Art. 196 of PC is strongly embedded in the constitutional liberties and freedoms and human rights of both the Council of Europe and the European Union. Freedom of conscience and religion, which originated in the wording of Art. 196 of PC remains in antinomy to other constitutional values protected by both international acts such as freedom of expression, freedom of artistic expression, the freedom to teach and freedom to enjoy cultural heritage. This requires balancing the content of these freedoms. At present stage there is yet no way to resolve the alleged doctrine of countertype of art.

Public manifestation of disregard for the Polish nation, the Republic of Poland and its constitutional authorities is a misdemeanor. Such disregard is not within the scope of the freedom of public debate. Such disregard is not within the concept of insult.

Gloss to the judgment of the ECtHR of 15 May 2022, OOO Memo p. Russia application no. 2840/10

No legitimate aim of proceedings for protection of reputation initiated by public authorities – gloss to the judgment of the ECtHR of 15 May 2022, OOO Memo p. Russia application no. 2840/10 On March 15, 2022. The European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in the case of OOO Memo p. Russia, Application No. 2840/10. This judgment represents a turnaround in the Court’s previous line of jurisprudence. The ECtHR ruled that proceedings for civil defamation brought by public authorities have, as a rule, no legitimate aim and are thus incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment establishes a higher level of protection against unjustified interference with freedom of expression than has been the case to date, and will have significant consequences for both proceedings before the ECHR and domestic proceedings. The judgement is also important because it draws attention to the problem of Stategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

The Right to Communicate as a Constitutional Rule in Cyberspace

In an era of intense progress of civilisation, in the field of digital media, national public interest objectives, set at the national level, still determine regulatory considerations and instruments emphasising cultural diversity are the justification for the limitations on fundamental rights referred to in the constitutions of democratic states. It is the national legislator who determines what interests are taken into account and within what limits individual rights may be restricted, as well as what measures in enforcing these restrictions the public authority may use. This article points to the now historic importance of freedom of expression, especially its element, the right to communicate, under conditions of declining state jurisdiction, as a result of new communication technologies and the development of cyberspace.

Gloss on the Judgment of the Supreme Court of August 24, 2023, file ref. no. IV KK 37/22

The purpose of the gloss is to present the correct line of reasoning that the Supreme Court should have adopted to reach the conclusion approved by the glossator. Relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights allows for the acceptance of the absence of a violation of the norm sanctioned as a result of the application of constitutional and convention interpretation, rather than just the lack of social harmfulness of the act, as basis for the denial of the element of criminality. Any legal restrictions on freedom of speech must arise from serious reasons and an urgent societal need.