Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. It is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. This freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly.

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.

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.