The effect of the Strasburg standards concerning subjective scope  of boundary of freedom of speech on the polish legal system 

We could hazard statement that in Poland we deal with gradual assimilation of Strasburg standards concerning subjective scope of boundary of freedom of speech. The Constitutional Tribunal noticed in decree of 12th March, 2008 that ‘On the strength of Strasburg judicatures, also polish literature have a stab to doing efforts of compare and digest rules which decided about protection intensity of these values (repute, veneration, privacy – AB’s gloss). […] Elide from differences between decrees concerning obtaining and meaning of particular terms of necessity allowable critique of persons who perform a public function, for years in civil and criminal cases the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court consistently adopt a position on issue about wider boundary of censure on this kind of persons.’ Purpose of this text is presenting on standards concerning subjective scope of boundary of freedom of speech, established in judicatures of European Court of Human Rights and giving a short sketch of process of assimilation in Poland.

Works of art often refer to privacy or the freedom of conscience and religion. The goal of the study is to contribute to the discussion on resolving conflict situations arising from the way of reception of art and to point out circumstances worth taking into consideration while choosing measures intended to prevent conflicts or at least minimize the effects of conflict situations that have already occurred. That is why it appears indispensable to consider difficulties in defining art-related concepts basing on social science, and to present artistic creation as a form of expression, as well as to analyze the determinants of the freedom of artistic creation as a law-protected interest in the political-legal system in the situation of conflict with other human rights.

Hate speech in relation to racial, national and ethnic minorities as the limitation of freedom of expression. Notes on the example of selected judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Hate speech in relation to racial, national and ethnic minorities is a common matter, appearing more and more frequently in public space and taking different forms depending on its brutality. There is a very thin line between hate speech and freedom of expression. Confronted with the wider freedom of speech and expression, hate speech requires taking some critical steps by both domestic and international authorities. The European Court of Human Rights, while examining the complaints concerning violations of the freedom of expression, verifies whether its limitations have certain grounds in the applicable law. The past jurisprudence of the Court clearly indicates when freedom of speech ends and hate speech begins, especially when offensive content is formulated in the mass media, e.g., on the Internet.

Gloss to the judgment of the District Court in Łódź of July 31, 2020 (file reference number II KK 381/18)

The aim of the gloss is to present the limitation of the scope of the criminality of the freedom of expression in the context of protecting the office of the President of the Republic of Poland against the insult resulting from the need to protect the freedom of expression, especially of a political nature, which contributes to public discourse and criticism of the head of state.

Gloss to the judgment of the District Court of April 27, 2021 (II W 63/21)

The current Code of Petty Offenses entered into force in a different legal and socio-economic reality. It does not correspond to contemporary realities, its interpretation requires care, due to the necessity to consider the current Polish Constitution. Article 63a of the Code protects against behavior that violates the aesthetics of public space. Such behavior may not be punished when it does not violate public order, as it constitutes a form of exercising individual the freedom of expression.

Restrictions on Freedom due to the Premise of “Health Protection”. A Few Remarks Inspired by the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in the Republic of Poland

There is no question that “health protection” is the premise for the establishment of constitutional restrictions on rights and freedoms. It has been so far the subject of legal science only exceptionally and occasionally; mainly in the context of restrictions on the freedom of economic activity. It was only the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the Republic of Poland that brought a wider interest in this category, referring it also to the limitations of another fundamental freedom – freedom of expression. Considering the above, the analysis of legal limitations on the freedom of expression, imposed on the basis of the premise of health protection, seems to be by all means justified and purposeful.

Gloss to the Judgment of the District Court in Krosno of July 26, 2021, file ref. no. II Ka 191/21

Pro-life activists, publicly displaying banners depicting human fetuses, have raised controversy. In the judgment, the perpetrator, who himself removed the banners and destroyed them while dismantling, was found guilty but not punished. The inability of the person who removes such content to claim their state of higher necessity is a derivative of their actions aiming at interests of the perpetrator who placed the banners. Behavior so directed may be justified as necessary defense, but higher necessity. Legal scholarship assumes that this type of pro-life activity is unlawful, legal practice fails to reflect such an assessment. It is practically impossible to rely on acting in self-defense, which requires the unlawfulness of the attack. If it is possible to call the police, the citizen does not have the right to self-defense. It also does not serve when the police are already there, but it does not intervene.

Gloss to the Judgment of the District Court in Kielce of August 25, 2022, file ref. no. IX Ka 715/22

The gloss aims to indicate the limits of freedom of expression, set by provisions on hate speech and destruction of property. These limits are indicated by the analyzed case where the property was damaged as a result of publicly displaying political posters. However, the court misinterpreted the law, leading to a conviction for an offense rather than a crime. There was also no obligation to redress the damage. The author discusses how there were generally no grounds for conviction and the accused should be acquitted for a different reason.