A Polish court acquitted a high school student, Jakub Wróblewski, of defaming MP Łukasz Mejza over social media posts criticizing his business dealings.
Mejza’s Lawsuit and the Court Ruling
Łukasz Mejza, a Member of Parliament, sued high school student Jakub Wróblewski for defamation after the student called him a “mental bottom.” The Regional Court in Poznań – Grunwald and Jeżyce found Wróblewski not guilty.
The case stemmed from posts published in 2021 when Wróblewski was 17 years old. Mejza sought a conviction and 50,000 zł in damages, claiming the teenager’s statements harmed his reputation. The court ruled the posts fell within the bounds of permissible criticism.
The Content of the Criticisms
Wróblewski’s posts included statements such as, “No apology to the parents of sick children whom Mejza tried to defraud. Mental bottom” and “There is no more disgusting figure in Polish politics than Mejza.” These statements formed the basis of the private criminal complaint.
The Vinci NeoClinic Affair
The conflict originated from media reports about Vinci NeoClinic, a company linked to Łukasz Mejza. The firm offered expensive therapies using so-called pluripotent stem cells, which experts deemed medically unproven.
Families of seriously ill children were offered treatment costing up to $80,000. Reports emerged that Mejza personally contacted parents, assuring them of the therapy’s effectiveness. The matter caused significant public outcry and led to his resignation as Deputy Minister of Sport.
Social Media Criticism and the Legal Action
Wróblewski’s publications were among numerous strong public reactions to the revealed information. Unlike most critics, he was the one sued by the politician. In 2022, Mejza filed a private criminal complaint under Article 212 of the Penal Code, alleging the student’s posts contributed to a wave of negative comments.
The Trial and the Verdict
The proceedings lasted over two and a half years. Initially, the case was dismissed without a hearing, but an appellate court overturned that decision and ordered a trial. Ultimately, the court acquitted Wróblewski of four charges.
Regarding the fifth charge, the court deemed its social harm negligible and dismissed the proceedings, meaning the young activist faces no criminal liability.
Justification for the Ruling
The court reasoned that the statements constituted an assessment of the politician’s activities in the context of a matter raising serious ethical concerns. The court emphasized that public figures must expect harsher criticism, especially regarding actions concerning health and people’s lives.
Freedom of Speech and Political Accountability
The verdict aligns with established case law regarding freedom of expression. In the case of politicians, the limits of permissible criticism are broader, as they hold public office and are subject to public control.
The case has reignited debate about Article 212 of the Penal Code, which provides for liability for defamation. Some legal circles and social organizations have long argued that this provision is sometimes used to suppress criticism.
