There is a chance that the people behind the Bolec.Info website will finally answer for publishing insulting opinions. The Commander of the Municipal Guard in Bolesławiec filed a report with the prosecutor’s office after the site administrator published an insulting comment about a young woman working in the guard. The site’s authors now want to avoid responsibility and manipulate their readers.
Slanders and lies had long appeared on the Bolec.Info website. The Commander of the Municipal Guard was the first to notify the prosecutor’s office. The case should essentially raise no doubts, yet the site administrators accuse the commander of political action and shift responsibility away from themselves.
The Boleslawiec.org service is in an awkward situation because, as a rule, it does not interfere in other editorial offices’ conflicts with the law. However, in the case of manipulation and violations of the principles of reliable journalism and human decency, we want to respond. That is why we publish below an abridged version of an article describing the situation in detail, along with comments from people who were or are professionally connected with journalism.
Article summary
[...] A discussion about the work of municipal guards broke out on the bolec.info portal. Alongside specific accusations, concerning, for example, the effectiveness of law-and-order officers, there were several anonymous posts containing vulgar epithets. The guards were called “a band of imbeciles pedaling bicycles,” while one of the female guards was subjected to insulting suggestions of sexual acts.
“These posts remained on the site for a very long time,” says Emil Zając, head of the municipal guard. “Only after a month did I decide to refer the matter to the prosecutor’s office. The portal’s publisher did not remove the insulting comments, even though the site states that similar content will be deleted. The site also asks users to report posts requiring moderation to the administrators. The commander did not use this option. Zając himself admits that he did not try to contact the portal’s owner to have the posts removed. ‘A person who commits a crime—and in my opinion this is precisely a crime—does not deserve to be negotiated with,’ Emil Zając explains. The prosecutor’s office accepted his report and ordered the police to collect evidence.”
[...] Emil Zając does not hide the fact that he wants both the vulgar internet users and the portal’s publisher—who, in his opinion, failed to fulfill their duties—to be held responsible. “We are public officials; we wear eagles on our caps. We may be criticized for our work, but not insulted,” the commander emphasizes. [...]
The article was written by Ilona Parejko and comes from the newspaper Słowo Polskie Gazeta Wrocławska.
Opinions
Readers first of all deserve an explanation that the comment published by Bolec.Info was what is known as an “anonymous opinion.” The system at Bolec.Info is designed so that anonymous statements are not published automatically. An administrator must do it. The administrator publishes it, and responsibility rests with them. This is a simple principle that has long existed in Polish law. The administrators of Bolec.Info write that this is not the case. Yet we all know perfectly well that if someone writes on a wall with spray paint what a friend whispers in their ear, it is that person, not the friend, who will answer for painting the wall and for the content of the inscription. I wonder whether the person who pasted in the statement will admit it. Otherwise, responsibility may fall on all members of the editorial staff.
The Bolec.Info service is often a source of conflict. It is a place where people are insulted, including teachers, councilors, doctors, officials, employees of municipal institutions, and so on. The site’s authors often invoke “freedom of speech,” yet they have no real understanding of what the term means. Freedom of speech is, after all, a citizen’s right to express their thoughts freely in speech and writing. It is not, however, the right to anonymously insult people and behave abusively. The site’s creators would apparently like everyone to be able to slander someone without bearing responsibility. That is not how things work in a state governed by the rule of law. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with anonymous insults or lies. The slogan is nevertheless powerful, and the administrators use it to camouflage unworthy behavior.
Bolec.Info often manipulates its readers. In its statements, the Bolec editorial team assures readers that it is independent and does not censor opinions. Meanwhile, many comments that do not confirm what the site’s authors think are not shown. The administrators do not publish them, even though the opinions insult no one and contain no vulgarities. On the service I run, not all comments are published either—it is stated in the regulations. I speak about this openly and do not pretend to people that I publish everything.
Bolec.Info also manipulates readers in other ways, including by organizing pseudo-polls. They contradict the standards of public-opinion research and therefore have no value. The site’s creators do not inform their readers about this, however. It even happens that inexperienced journalists from other media cite these pseudo-surveys. Such supposed research is most often a pretext for insulting other people and publishing lies on various topics.
It is sad that Bolec.Info readers, mainly young people, are subjected to these manipulations. They defend the site because they have been sold the message that the Commander of the Municipal Guard attacked freedom of speech. In reality, the issue concerns insulting opinions and ordinary abuse directed at a woman.
Everyone who creates websites should do so reliably, avoid manipulating their readers, and ensure respect for human dignity.
Krzysztof Gwizdała
graduate of journalism at Jagiellonian University, publisher of the Boleslawiec.org daily
The answer seems simple: comments insulting specific people or institutions cannot be allowed because they are protected by law. The second issue is interpreting what is insulting and what is not. If I write that the municipal guard is useless, is that vulgar or not? In my opinion, not entirely—but if I write that the municipal guard is a bunch of sons of bitches, then that is unquestionably insulting.
Personally, when it comes to epithets such as “idiot, lout, moron” directed not at specific people but at those using nicknames, I allow them, with exceptions of course. Generally, there are regulations—I do not allow comments blatantly attacking the name of the editorial office, the moderator, or other portals. But it is all a matter of interpretation.
Konrad Przezdzięk
editor-in-chief of the Jelonka.com portal
Last week, the Commander of the Municipal Guard in Bolesławiec finally filed a report with the District Prosecutor’s Office. Finally, because he had waited long enough for the creators of Bolec.Info to awaken from their lethargy and complacency. It is only a pity that the creators do not quite understand that the fact that Bolec.Info is supposedly fully independent does not release them from responsibility for their words, including non-standard ones—even if they are uttered by several people a day—or from responsibility for complying with the law.
I think that if the commander or his subordinates had begun contacting Bolec.Info, they would only then have exposed themselves to the accusation that they were attempting to pressure the creators of a portal that is a non-commercial and independent civic initiative.
The accusation that the Municipal Guard waited for the insulting content to become popular can undoubtedly only be amusing; such reasoning can be understood only by those making the statement themselves.
It is undoubtedly encouraging that the portal’s creators declare the portal’s independence in connection with the upcoming elections and assure readers that they are prepared for attempts to influence the content published in Bolec.Info. It is only a pity that they defend the freedom to express their own content so fiercely only now—when it has literally (!) sunk below the belt. Thus, one can expect that at any moment anyone may be covered with an authorial bucket of filth with impunity—of course, all within the framework of a so-called civic initiative—and that such a person will walk around spat upon until it becomes sufficiently popular, because the creators of Bolec.Info are always facing some election. They are independent and non-commercial. Therefore, one can only ask the moderator to finally deign to moderate this vomit off someone.
Bernard Łętowski’s comment is his private opinion—even though he is paid for it and it is published—and I know that not everyone believes he describes the Municipal Guard’s actions best. I do not know where he gets his information that, instead of waking drunk people sleeping on benches, moving badly parked cars, and so on, the guards monitor the Internet. Perhaps Mr Łętowski is unaware that many people have access to electronic media after working hours as well—it really does happen, believe me. Of course, anyone who has been covered in filth, or, as some prefer, insulted, may file a complaint with the prosecutor about foolish things written on the Internet (although Bernard Łętowski does not explain where the limits of this foolishness lie, casually downplaying the problem), or bring a civil case and pay for it. However, Mr Bernard forgot that if the person involved were not a Municipal Guard officer but, for example, a guard from a private security company, no amateur of “independent” portal discussions would be interested in her, and she would not have to wash it off. I believe that this is one reason why there is a provision concerning insults against a public official, and why there are limits to “foolishness.” Or perhaps, before the elections, some independent debaters do not think it appropriate to go to Lady Justice—and are counting on that?!
And one more thing: I do not understand why Bernard Łętowski writes about a portal “unfavorable” to the city authorities. Is that a synonym for “independent”—because that is how the creators of Bolec.Info describe it?
Agnieszka Gergont
I fully agree with the tone of the statement by the creators of the Bolec.Info website that, in the case of the slander published on the site against a Municipal Guard employee and the reaction of the Guard’s commander, a mountain is being made out of a molehill. A trivial matter in which every publisher of a “newspaper” would try to cover up its blunder as quickly as possible after publishing impermissible content has here grown into a struggle for some imaginary values. A humble admission of error has been replaced by turning the matter on its head. The issue is therefore no longer that the female guard was pelted with the mud of disgusting calumnies; it is now that the publisher of these revelations has become the target of an attack for publishing “independent” opinions.
But this is the only point on which I agree with the authors of the statement. For they, like a carefree Dyzio, pretend that the whole matter essentially does not concern them. After all, they placed a legal notice on their website, which clearly states that anyone may demand the rewording of opinions posted there if they are insulting or defamatory. How simple. All that is needed is for every resident of the city, country, Europe, the world, or outer space—if any extraterrestrial civilizations exist—to regularly read all the opinions posted there, and they will know whether someone is insulting them. They can then ask for the opinions to be removed. Perhaps the editorial office will grant the request.
In their statement, the creators of Bolec.Info say that the statements quoted on their site concerning the Municipal Guard “departed from accepted standards of netiquette.” Applying such a bizarre euphemism to disgusting slander shows that electronic toys have confused some people’s minds. Responsibility for one’s words, respect for the law and social norms—in other words, the foundations of a democratic society—seem to be nothing compared with the dubious power of the dump into which some are trying to turn the Internet.
The politicization of the entire matter by the creators of the Bolec.Info website now inspires only amusement. The rhetoric of these pronouncements closely resembles the language of the Polish People’s Republic: “Hands off the Soviet Union,” “reaction will not spit in our faces,” “we will defend socialism like independence.” The site’s creators used a tactic that any hooligan at odds with the law could successfully employ. If they happened to get into trouble before an election, they could raise an outcry that disciplinary action against them was a political attack on their freedom.
What I find incomprehensible in the entire matter, however, is the issue of Bernard Łętowski’s comment, which the authors of the statement eagerly cite. It boils down to the claim that until the city is in perfect order and residents are not angels, guards should not use the Internet. The second moral of the comment is that the Municipal Guard should give up its powers during interventions when the matter concerns people unfriendly to the city authorities.
And one general reflection. Independent courts are one of the elements of mature democracies. They are the institution meant to reconcile or determine the guilt or rightness of the parties. After all, every contract we enter into, even one for connecting a telephone, contains a clause concerning the court that will settle disputes. So why does our society show such ostracism toward those who use this element of democracy? I think it is simply a sign of the immaturity of our Polish democracy. We still treat the court as in the days of the Polish People’s Republic, when it was associated exclusively with restrictions. Yet even in the case of the Bolec.Info website, an amicable settlement in court is possible. I do not know whether its creators would rather shout at the top of their lungs that they are being wronged instead of using the possibilities provided by the law. That would require admitting a mistake, however, and some people find that very difficult.
I consider comments attempting to show that the commander’s notification to the prosecutor’s office of a crime being committed amounts to using cannons against sparrows to be misguided. Let us ask those who previously—and probably later—will gladly use slander against various people whether they really consider themselves little sparrows. Secondly, well-known American examples of successfully reducing crime show that they involved zero tolerance for even its smallest manifestations.
If the case concerning the insulting texts on Bolec.Info were decided in court, we would have a clear interpretation of how the law applies to such cases. I consider that a significant positive outcome of the entire matter. Discussions, opinions, and mockery of the conduct of either side in the dispute would give way to a legal assessment of the case, which would indicate the standard of conduct for website administrators and internet users publishing texts on them. Everyone would know their rights, but also their obligations. That is one of the purposes of courts: to interpret reality in light of the applicable law.
Bogdan Mazurkiewicz
Krzysztof Gwizdała