defamation

Czy istnieją granice dozwolonej krytyki. O relacji kontratypu określonego w art. 41 ustawy – prawo prasowe z kontratypem zapisanym w art. 213 k.k.

Author: Paulina Kwiatkowska-Serafin
Institution: Ministerstwo Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego
Year of publication: 2016
Source: Show
Pages: 152-163
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/tpn2016.2.08
PDF: tpn/11/TPN2016208.pdf

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.

Zniesławienie na Facebooku

Author: Sylwia Wełyczko
Institution: Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny SWPS w Warszawie
Year of publication: 2015
Source: Show
Pages: 192-215
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/tpn2015.2.11
PDF: tpn/9/TPN2015211.pdf

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.

Glosa do wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka z 15 maja 2022 r., OOO Memo p. Rosji, skarga nr 2840/10

Author: Zuzanna Nowicka
Institution: Uniwersytet Warszawski
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4095-2296
Year of publication: 2023
Source: Show
Pages: 341-347
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2023.03.25
PDF: ppk/73/ppk7325.pdf

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.

Message to:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart