The price of insults: new episode of the NMHH’s podcast series on freedom of expression and the press now available
Those who speak on public affairs must tolerate even extreme criticism; however, in practice, it is not always easy to decide who is considered a public figure, what constitutes public affairs and what falls outside the scope of protection of freedom of expression. The new episode of the podcast series on freedom of expression and freedom of the press by the National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), featuring András Koltay, the President of the NMHH, and Zoltán Péntek, attorney-at-law, aims to provide some guidance on this matter.
“Scum”, “traitor”, “thief”, “psycho”: these are some of the labels used in public discourse; indeed, most of the insults are not even fit to be repeated. Admittedly, instead of primarily traditional press or media to denigrate each other, people now take to social media where anyone can have a platform to speak free of charge and without editorial responsibility. As free discussion of public affairs is a cornerstone of democracy, such speech is particularly protected by the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, when discussing issues of public interest, the use of stronger language is allowed and public figures and those who speak on public affairs must tolerate even blunt opinions. In such cases, the rights to reputation and honour have a lower priority; but for how long should someone who expresses an opinion on a public matter endure insults? Where is the boundary between public and private matters, public and private figures, disparagement and expression of opinion? And can someone who voluntarily discloses details of their private life be protected from extreme criticism? Does anyone become a public figure simply by identifying themselves as such on social media and should celebrities or influencers be considered public figures?
“I believe that influencers are public figures. The reason is that they are not only capable of influencing public opinion, but that is their explicit purpose”, says András Koltay, President of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority in the episode looking at links between reputation, honour, privacy and freedom of speech in the NMHH Podcast series on freedom of speech and the press.
“In my view, it is right that the legal system in Hungary has moved towards broad freedom of speech in public discourse”, stresses András Koltay.
“Commercial television channels were the first to show shocking public scenes, causing a moral panic. Such content has now moved to the internet. So anyone looking for such content can easily find it online and this has somewhat pulled the rug out from under TV channels”, says Zoltán Péntek, attorney-at-law, reflecting on the transformation of the media space.
Both speakers agree that it is an important issue whether a price can be put on infringing opinions, so whether the laws that sanction violations of reputation, honour, privacy and human dignity are strict enough. Do damages awarded by courts and fines imposed by the media authority have a deterrent effect? Are these legal instruments capable at all of restoring reputation or human dignity that has been violated or deterring anyone from committing such violations? The answers to these questions are found in the latest episode.
As before, the NMHH’s podcast series on freedom of speech and the press is available on the National Media and Infocommunications Authority’s YouTube, Spotify and Apple Podcasts channel. The host of the series is Tibor Exterde.
