Polusatirični komentar urednika: kada građanin napiše komentar koji Udruženje BH novinari smatraju klevetničkim, za njih je sudska zaštita legitimna; kada se od Udruženja BH novinari traži da pred sudom dokažu vlastite tvrdnje, tužba za klevetu postaje SLAPP, „pritisak“, „targetiranje“, „zastrašivanje medijskih profesionalaca“ i „pravno i online nasilje“…
SUD JAVNOSTI – PROTIV ZLOUPOTREBA NOVINARSTVA
KOMENTAR UREDNIKA
Autor: Danijel Senkić, novinar i glavni i odgovorni urednik portala Dokumentovano.ba
VRIJEME RASKRINKAVANJA
Postoje trenuci kada jedna fotografija ekrana kaže više od deset saopćenja, dvadeset međunarodnih apela i stotinu priča o navodnom pritisku na slobodu medija.
Na Facebook stranici Udruženja/udruge BH novinari, ispod njihove objave u kojoj se advokat Mirnes Ajanović ponovo predstavlja kao predvodnik nekakve kampanje protiv novinara, u komentaru je napisano:
„Vi vodite kampanju protiv čovjeka koji je dokazao da lažete za potrebe SDA mafije.“
Već narednog dana BH novinari odgovorili su izrazito pristojno:
„Ljubazno podsjećamo: Svaki klevetnički komentar na FB je utuživ.“
Za više informacija uputili su građanina i na presudu Evropskog suda za ljudska prava.
Ljubazno, profesionalno i poučno.
Gotovo da čovjek poželi zahvaliti na pravnoj edukaciji.
Dakle, kada neko na Facebooku napiše komentar koji BH novinari smatraju klevetničkim, onda je potpuno prihvatljivo podsjetiti ga da može biti tužen.
Kleveta je utuživa.
Sud postoji.
Odgovornost za javno izgovorenu i napisanu riječ postoji.
Sve je jasno.
Ali kada Mirnes Ajanović podnese tužbu zato što su BH novinari i Anisa Mahmutović javno tvrdili da predvodi kampanju blaćenja, da targetira, uznemirava, zastrašuje i diskredituje medijske profesionalce – tada tužba odjednom više nije ustavno pravo na sudsku zaštitu.
Tada postaje SLAPP.
Pritisak.
Targetiranje.
Zastrašivanje.
Iscrpljivanje.
Pa, na kraju, čak i „pravno i online nasilje“.
KLEVETA JE UTUŽIVA – ALI SAMO KADA TO ODGOVARA UDRUŽENJU BH NOVINARI
Očito postoji jedna pravna matematika za građane, a druga za Udruženje BH novinari.
Kada građanin napiše ono što se njima ne dopada:
„Ljubazno podsjećamo – komentar je utuživ.“
Kada su oni tuženi zbog svojih javnih tvrdnji:
„Alarm! Napad na slobodu medija! Obavijestite Evropu! Pozovite međunarodne organizacije! Tražite od suda da odbaci tužbu prije suđenja!“
„Zastrašuju nas!“ „Blate nas!“ „Targetiraju nas!“ „Vrše nasilje nad nama!“…
Dakle, sud je dobar kada bi pred njim mogao odgovarati građanin.
Sud je opasan kada bi pred njim trebali odgovarati BH novinari – a posebno je opasan onaj ko se usudi podnijeti tužbu protiv njih.
Tužba je legitimna kada se njome štite oni koje BH novinari podržavaju.
Tužba je nasilje kada se njome traži da BH novinari dokažu vlastite optužbe.
To bi se moglo nazvati pravnim standardom.
Ali samo ako riječ „dvostruki“ stavimo ispred njega.
„MI NISMO SVETE KRAVE“
Novinarka Đurđica Klancir jednom je sasvim ispravno kazala:
„Novinari nisu svete krave niti to žele biti.“
Dodala je da novinari ne žele biti ni niža vrsta prema kojoj moćnici mogu postupati kako žele.
U U 90-ima PRISLUŠKIVALI, ŠTO SE PROMIJENILO DO DANAS? Aktualni savjetnik premijera bio je upleten u sličnu situaciju
Kao novinar sa stažom dužim od 30 godina, s tim se potpuno slažem.
Novinari nisu niža vrsta.
Ali nisu ni viša kasta.
Nisu građani drugog reda.
Ali nisu ni nedodirljivi stalež oslobođen odgovornosti za javno iznesenu riječ.
NE PRIPADAM STADU SVETIH KRAVA
Kao novinar koji se ovim poslom kontinuirano i svakodnevno bavi od 10. aprila 1994. godine, javno izjavljujem da ne pripadam stadu svetih novinarskih krava koje smatraju da mogu klevetnički pisati o svakome, neosnovano optuživati svakoga i zahtijevati dokaze od svih – osim od sebe.
Ne smatram da me novinarska profesija oslobađa obaveze da dokažem ono što objavim i da sam dužan pisati istinu!
Ne smatram da je demanti napad na mene.
Ne smatram da je objavljivanje dokumenata i dokaza moje targetiranje.
Ne smatram da je tužba podnesena sudu nasilje prema meni.
Ako objavim neistinu i odbijem je ispraviti – postoji sud.
Isto pravilo mora vrijediti za mene, za Mirnesa Ajanovića, za Anisu Mahmutović, za rukovodstvo Udruženja BH novinari, za svakog novinara, ali i za svakog građanina Bosne i Hercegovine.
DA SE DAME I GOSPODA NOVINARI KOLEGIJALNO NE „UZNEMIRE“
Naravno, ovaj tekst treba pažljivo pisati.
Ne smijemo postaviti previše pitanja, da se neko ne osjeti targetiranim.
Ne smijemo objaviti previše dokumenata, da se to ne proglasi online nasiljem.
Ne smijemo ih previše podsjećati na njihovu vlastitu Facebook objavu, jer bi to moglo predstavljati i online pritisak.
A naročito ne smijemo primijetiti da BH novinari građane „ljubazno podsjećaju“ da su klevetnički komentari na njihovoj Facebook stranici utuživi, dok istovremeno na sve strane dreče da su tužbe protiv njih sredstvo ušutkivanja novinara.
TIHO PITANJE
Zato ćemo sasvim tiho postaviti pitanje, da se dame i gospoda novinari ne „uznemire“:
Zašto je sudska zaštita od klevete legitimna kada je Udruženje BH novinari preporučuje protiv građanina, a postaje „nasilje“ kada neko pred sudom zatraži zaštitu od tvrdnji Udruženja BH novinari?
I još tiše:
Da li smatraju da su novinari svete krave ili da pred zakonom trebaju odgovarati kao i svi drugi građani?
Ne tražimo odgovor odmah.
Da se neko, ne daj Bože, od njih ne uznemiri.
Tek kada dođu sebi – neka odgovore.
JEDAN ZAKON ZA SVE!
Suština nije u tome treba li neko tužiti autora jednog Facebook komentara.
Suština je u tome da su Udruženje BH novinari vlastitom objavom priznali upravo ono što pokušavaju osporiti Mirnesu Ajanoviću:
Kleveta je utuživa i o njoj može odlučivati sud.
Prema tome, nema ništa nedemokratsko u tome da se pred sudom zatraži odgovor na pitanja:
Koju je prijetnju Mirnes Ajanović uputio?
Koga je zastrašivao?
Kojom radnjom je nekoga uznemiravao?
Kako je targetirao novinare?
Koji je dokaz da je predvodio kampanju blaćenja?
Ako Udruženje BH novinari imaju dokaze, sud je najbolje mjesto da ih predstave.
Ako ih nemaju, međunarodna saopćenja ih neće proizvesti.
Mogu se obraćati Evropskoj federaciji novinara.
Mogu pisati Centralnoj izbornoj komisiji.
Mogu obavještavati domaće i međunarodne organizacije.
Ali prije ili kasnije ostaje isto pitanje:
GOVORE LI ISTINU I MOGU LI TO DOKAZATI?
SUD JAVNOSTI ČITA I SITNA SLOVA
Udruženje BH novinari možda je očekivalo da će se u mnoštvu saopćenja, etiketa i velikih riječi izgubiti njihov kratki Facebook odgovor na jedan komentar.
Nije se izgubio.
U njemu su saželi cijeli predmet:
„Svaki klevetnički komentar na FB je utuživ.“
Tačno.
Kao što je utuživa i klevetnička objava na portalu.
Kao što je utuživo i pronošenje neistinite tvrdnje.
Kao što novinarska legitimacija nije sudski imunitet.
Kao što članstvo u novinarskom udruženju ne daje dozvolu za neistinu.
Zato Dokumentovano.ba neće odustati od objavljivanja dokumenata, dokaza i javno postavljenih pitanja.
Ne zato što su novinari svete krave.
Nego upravo zato što nisu.
Ljubazno ih podsjećamo: pred zakonom su svi jednaki.
“WE ARE NOT SACRED COWS” – BUT WE WILL SUE OVER DEFAMATORY COMMENTS: THE BH JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION DEMANDS THAT IT NOT BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS OWN DEFAMATORY CLAIMS, WHILE “POLITELY REMINDING” CITIZENS THAT DEFAMATION ON ITS FACEBOOK PAGE IS LEGALLY ACTIONABLE
A semi-satirical editorial commentary: when a citizen posts a comment that the BH Journalists Association considers defamatory, seeking protection through the courts is legitimate in its view; but when the Association is asked to prove its own claims before a court, a defamation lawsuit suddenly becomes a SLAPP, “pressure,” “targeting,” “intimidation of media professionals,” and “legal and online violence”…
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION – AGAINST THE ABUSE OF JOURNALISM
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
Author: Danijel Senkić, journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Dokumentovano.ba
TIME TO EXPOSE THE CONTRADICTIONS
There are moments when a single screenshot says more than ten press releases, twenty international appeals, and a hundred stories about alleged pressure on media freedom.
On the Facebook page of the BH Journalists Association, beneath a post in which attorney Mirnes Ajanović was once again portrayed as the leader of some kind of campaign against journalists, a user wrote:
“You are conducting a campaign against a man who proved that you lie for the benefit of the SDA mafia.”
The very next day, the BH Journalists Association responded with remarkable politeness:
“A polite reminder: Every defamatory comment on Facebook is legally actionable.”
For further information, they also referred the citizen to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
Polite, professional, and educational.
One could almost feel compelled to thank them for the legal lesson.
Therefore, when someone posts a Facebook comment that the BH Journalists Association considers defamatory, it is entirely acceptable to remind that person that they may be sued.
Defamation is legally actionable.
Courts exist.
Accountability for words spoken and written publicly exists.
Everything is clear.
But when Mirnes Ajanović files a lawsuit because the BH Journalists Association and Anisa Mahmutović publicly claimed that he was leading a smear campaign, targeting, harassing, intimidating, and discrediting media professionals, the lawsuit suddenly ceases to be a constitutional exercise of the right to judicial protection.
It becomes a SLAPP.
Pressure.
Targeting.
Intimidation.
Exhaustion.
And, ultimately, even “legal and online violence.”
DEFAMATION IS LEGALLY ACTIONABLE – BUT ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THE BH JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION
There is clearly one set of legal rules for citizens and another for the BH Journalists Association.
When a citizen writes something they dislike:
“A polite reminder – the comment is legally actionable.”
But when they are sued over their own public claims:
“Alarm! An attack on media freedom! Notify Europe! Call the international organizations! Ask the court to dismiss the lawsuit before the trial even begins!”
“They are intimidating us!” “They are smearing us!” “They are targeting us!” “They are committing violence against us!”…
Thus, the court is acceptable when a citizen might be held accountable before it.
The court becomes dangerous when the BH Journalists Association might be required to answer before it – and anyone who dares to file a lawsuit against the Association becomes especially dangerous.
A lawsuit is legitimate when it protects those supported by the BH Journalists Association.
A lawsuit becomes violence when it requires the Association to prove its own accusations.
This could be called a legal standard.
But only if the word “double” is placed before it.
“WE ARE NOT SACRED COWS”
Journalist Đurđica Klancir once quite rightly said:
“Journalists are not sacred cows, nor do they wish to be.”
She added that journalists do not wish to be treated as an inferior class whom those in power may treat however they please.
U U 90-ima PRISLUŠKIVALI, ŠTO SE PROMIJENILO DO DANAS? Aktualni savjetnik premijera bio je upleten u sličnu situaciju
As a journalist with more than 30 years of professional experience, I fully agree.
Journalists are not an inferior class.
But neither are they a superior caste.
They are not second-class citizens.
But neither are they an untouchable class exempt from accountability for words expressed publicly.
I DO NOT BELONG TO THE HERD OF SACRED COWS
As a journalist who has worked continuously and on a daily basis in this profession since 10 April 1994, I publicly declare that I do not belong to the herd of sacred journalistic cows who believe they may write defamatory claims about anyone, accuse everyone without justification, and demand evidence from everyone – except themselves.
I do not believe that the journalistic profession exempts me from the obligation to substantiate what I publish or from my duty to write the truth.
I do not consider a rebuttal to be an attack against me.
I do not consider the publication of documents and evidence to be the targeting of me.
I do not consider a lawsuit filed before a court to be violence against me.
If I publish a falsehood and refuse to correct it – there is a court.
The same rule must apply to me, to Mirnes Ajanović, to Anisa Mahmutović, to the leadership of the BH Journalists Association, to every journalist, and to every citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
SO THAT THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF JOURNALISM ARE NOT, IN A SPIRIT OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY, “DISTURBED”
Naturally, this article must be written with great care.
We must not ask too many questions, lest someone feel targeted.
We must not publish too many documents, lest that be declared online violence.
We must not remind them too often of their own Facebook post, because that might also be portrayed as online pressure.
And above all, we must not point out that the BH Journalists Association “politely reminds” citizens that defamatory comments on its Facebook page are legally actionable, while simultaneously proclaiming in every direction that lawsuits filed against the Association are a means of silencing journalists.
A QUIET QUESTION
So we will ask the question very quietly, so that the ladies and gentlemen of journalism are not “disturbed”:
Why is judicial protection against defamation legitimate when the BH Journalists Association recommends it against a citizen, but becomes “violence” when someone seeks protection before a court against claims made by the BH Journalists Association?
And even more quietly:
Do they believe that journalists are sacred cows, or that they should be held accountable before the law like all other citizens?
We are not asking for an immediate answer.
Heaven forbid that any of them should become distressed.
They may respond once they have recovered.
ONE LAW FOR EVERYONE!
The issue is not whether someone should sue the author of a single Facebook comment.
The issue is that, through its own post, the BH Journalists Association acknowledged precisely what it is attempting to deny Mirnes Ajanović:
Defamation is legally actionable, and a court may rule on it.
Therefore, there is nothing undemocratic about asking a court to obtain answers to the following questions:
What specific threat did Mirnes Ajanović make?
Whom did he intimidate?
What specific act amounted to harassment?
How did he target journalists?
What evidence proves that he led a smear campaign?
If the BH Journalists Association has evidence, a court is the best place to present it.
If it has none, international press releases will not manufacture it.
It may appeal to the European Federation of Journalists.
It may write to the Central Election Commission.
It may notify domestic and international organizations.
But sooner or later, the same question remains:
ARE THEY TELLING THE TRUTH, AND CAN THEY PROVE IT?
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION ALSO READS THE FINE PRINT
The BH Journalists Association may have expected its brief Facebook response to a single comment to disappear amid the multitude of press releases, labels, and grand declarations.
It did not disappear.
In that response, the Association summarized the entire case:
“Every defamatory comment on Facebook is legally actionable.”
Correct.
Just as a defamatory article published on a news portal is legally actionable.
Just as repeating a false claim may also give rise to legal liability.
Just as a press card does not provide immunity from the courts.
Just as membership in a journalists’ association does not grant a licence to spread falsehoods.
That is why Dokumentovano.ba will not stop publishing documents, evidence, and publicly raised questions.
Not because journalists are sacred cows.
But precisely because they are not.
A POLITE REMINDER: EVERYONE IS EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.