Human rights organizations have appealed to the Polish Senate to abolish criminal penalties for defamation, citing freedom of speech and international standards.
Human Rights Standards and the Appeal
Organizations defending human rights have petitioned the Senate to begin work on removing criminal penalties for defamation. They argue this change is necessary to better protect freedom of speech and align Polish law with international standards.
The petition to the Senate was submitted by ARTICLE 19 Europe, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Sieć Obywatelska Watchdog Polska, and the Ogólnopolska Federation of Non-Governmental Organizations.
Calls for Repeal of Criminal Defamation Articles
The organizations are calling for the repeal of Articles 212–215 of the Polish Penal Code. They believe this change is essential to fully protect freedom of speech in Poland and fulfill international obligations, including those stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights, recommendations from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.
Criminal defamation provisions in Poland are reportedly used against journalists, activists, and whistleblowers acting in the public interest.
International Law and Freedom of Expression
The petition states that international human rights standards clearly indicate that defamation should not be subject to criminal penalties. Maintaining imprisonment for defamation is inconsistent with resolutions from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and recommendations from the European Commission.
The European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence indicates that deprivation of liberty for expression is permissible only in cases of hate speech or incitement to violence, which are already penalized under Polish criminal law, such as Article 256 § 1 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes incitement to hatred based on nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, or lack thereof.
Civil Code Protection of Personal Rights
The organizations emphasize that criminalizing defamation is unnecessary because good name and reputation are already effectively protected under the Polish Civil Code.
Disproportionate Sanctions and Chilling Effect
The organizations argue that criminal sanctions are a disproportionate way to protect good name and reputation, creating a chilling effect. The prospect of lengthy and costly legal proceedings encourages self-censorship and limits open public debate, which is fundamental to a democratic state of law. They maintain that protection of personal rights should be limited to civil and administrative instruments.
They point to Articles 23 and 24 in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code, which allow individuals whose good name has been violated, and legal entities whose reputation has been harmed, to seek remedies such as removal of the harmful effects, compensation, or a donation to a social cause.
Anti-SLAPP Legislation Insufficient
The petition highlights that decriminalizing defamation is crucial for protecting civil society from so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Anti-SLAPP legislation will not be fully effective without parallel changes to criminal law.
Decriminalization is not only a fulfillment of Poland’s international obligations but also a significant step towards strengthening public debate, protecting independent media, NGOs, activist groups, and limiting the abuse of criminal law to suppress criticism and social control.
SLAPP Suits and Their Impact
Defamation provisions in Poland are often used in strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). The purpose of such proceedings is to discourage journalists, activists, NGO representatives, and whistleblowers from speaking out on public issues.
Initiators of SLAPP suits use legal processes to financially, temporally, and psychologically burden their opponents, creating a chilling effect and discouraging the exercise of freedom of expression due to fear of consequences.
NGOs believe the chilling effect of SLAPP proceedings often extends beyond those directly involved to other participants in public debate. The mere initiation of a case can negatively impact open discussion, regardless of the outcome.
Criminal Proceedings as a Burden
Criminal proceedings place a financial, temporal, and psychological burden on the accused. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has emphasized that such cases are particularly burdensome and can severely limit the activities of entities acting as public watchdogs.
Duplication of Legal Pathways
The organizations argue there is no rational argument for maintaining two separate mechanisms for protecting good name or reputation.
They note that, as organizations providing legal assistance to those whose freedom of expression has been violated, they frequently observe parallel civil and criminal proceedings initiated in connection with the same statement, suggesting the aim is not legal protection but a chilling effect.
Interviews conducted by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights with criminal court judges reveal that criminal defamation proceedings often concern trivial matters, such as leaving negative comments on service rating platforms (e.g., Google Maps) or social media.
These phenomena, especially when considered together, negatively impact not only those against whom legal proceedings are initiated but also the already overburdened justice system.
