January 5, 2017<\/p>\n
The obligation for state officials to endure public criticism is not prescribed with the aim of restricting their work, but rather to expand the space for freedom of speech and public dialogue. The ruling of the Higher Court in Belgrade represents a worrying message to the media about what might happen to them if they write negatively about state officials.<\/p>\n
We are appalled by the claim of Judge Slobodan Keranovi\u0107 that the journalistic stance about the political responsibility of a minister in the Government of Serbia falls under the category of \u201cunauthorised\u201d, \u201cfalse\u201d and \u201cunpermitted information\u201d. We are concerned about the freedom of expression in Serbia if the harsh criticism of the work of a minister, explained through sentences in which journalist Sandra Petru\u0161i\u0107 makes a clear distinction between explicit assertions and assumptions, is declared by the court as being \u201cunauthorised information\u201d. How can journalists be \u201cunauthorised\u201d to do that which is their job: to collect information and, on the basis of that collected material, suggest possible conclusions?<\/p>\n
We consider it extremely confusing and contradictory that Judge Keranovi\u0107 admits in his ruling that the court \u201ccould not, and was not given jurisdiction to, determine who were the organisers of the event in Hercegova\u010dka Street\u201d, but that he adds that the same court \u201cdefinitely established as false the information that the complainant (i.e. Neboj\u0161a Stefanovi\u0107) was an organiser, participant and helper\u201d in the demolitions that occurred in Hercegova\u010dka Street. We are very curious to see how such an explicit presumption of innocence of the Minister will be explained by the Court of Appeal, which will decide on this judgement in the second instance following NIN\u2019s appeal. Are the prosecutors who are leading this investigating informed about the explicit stance of the judge, and will this stance impact on the investigation?<\/p>\n
Making a distinction between a critical attitude and factual assertions is the main issue of this dispute. The journalism and media community hopes that the Court of Appeal will devote itself more thoroughly than the High Court to this dilemma, which is one of the main battlegrounds for freedom of expression around the world.<\/p>\n