A local example is the actions of ks. Jarosiewicz against istotne.pl journalists. The priest did everything he could to silence the matter of reports about his relationship with younger celebrity Adrian Dankowski. He filed several court cases against the journalists. He has already lost most of them, but he is appealing the judgments, and the case has therefore continued from 2024 until today.

Another action that a lawyer assessed as a potential SLAPP involved claims pursued in a lawsuit by the president of Zakłady Ceramiczne "Bolesławiec," Arkadiusz Grzesikowski, against an employee who criticised him.

“This type of conduct, resulting from a public figure filing a lawsuit—someone who must develop a thicker skin and also be more resistant to criticism—can be described as potential strategic legal action aimed at suppressing public debate, namely a SLAPP,” attorney Marcin Pawelec-Jakowiecki assessed.

We described the case in the article: The ceramics company president first fired the employee and then sued him for PLN 25,000 over an online post.

What is a SLAPP lawsuit: a gag on public criticism

SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are strategic legal actions intended to suppress public debate. Their purpose is not to obtain genuine legal protection, but to use court proceedings as a tool of pressure.

The main aim of these actions is to intimidate participants in public debate and discourage others from speaking out on important social issues. The lawsuit is meant to be a punishment, because for many SLAPP victims the very fact that lengthy proceedings continue becomes one.

The chilling effect of SLAPPs

Having to respond to successive court filings, legal-service costs and the threat of substantial financial claims can effectively discourage public activity.

In such cases, plaintiffs often use their financial, political or social advantage against journalists, activists, bloggers or local watchdogs who do not have comparable resources.

In small local communities or newsrooms, a single lawsuit can silence not only the person sued but also their entire environment.

People targeted by SLAPP lawsuits are often those who first identify corruption, abuse, disinformation or a lack of transparency in decision-making. Silencing them deprives the state of one of the most important mechanisms of democratic self-defence and information security.

Who is the new law intended to protect?

The law has been designed to protect not only journalists, but everyone who becomes involved in public affairs. The following will be able to seek protection:

  • Journalists and bloggers – regardless of whether they write for a large newsroom or run their own blog.
  • Activists and local watchdogs – people who monitor the authorities’ actions and safeguard transparency in public life.
  • Scientists and artists – when their research or creative work concerns matters important to society.
  • Whistleblowers – people reporting irregularities in the workplace or public institutions.
  • Residents involved in local affairs – for example, members of neighbourhood councils, organisers of public consultations or neighbourhood initiatives.
  • People holding public office – when they themselves become victims of legal harassment in connection with their participation in debate.

A broad definition of public debate

The law introduces a broad understanding of public debate. Protection covers not only typical journalistic activity, but also:

  • civic and social activity,
  • scientific and research activity,
  • artistic work,
  • watchdog activity.

Importantly, protection also applies when someone is only preparing to take action on an issue that arouses legitimate public interest. There is no need to wait until the matter reaches the front pages of newspapers.

What does the protection involve?

The law is primarily intended to counter the phenomenon of SLAPP, or strategic lawsuits aimed at silencing critics. This concerns situations in which individuals or institutions sue participants in public debate not to win the case in court, but to intimidate them, exhaust them financially and discourage them from speaking out further.

The new regulations will allow courts to quickly dismiss such obviously unfounded lawsuits. Defendants will be able to benefit from expedited proceedings and, if they win, reimbursement of costs and compensation.