In order to recognize information expressed in one sentence as false, it is necessary to evaluate it in the context of the entire publication, according to the decision of the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court
.in_text_content_22 { width: 300px; height: 600px; } @media(min-width: 600px) { .in_text_content_22 { width: 580px; height: 400px; } }
The press service of the Supreme Court said in a statement that when deciding whether to recognize information as unreliable through one sentence in a publication and its refutation, the court must evaluate the content and direction of the entire publication (its context). One sentence should not be “torn out” of the context of the entire publication when refuting it.
This conclusion was made by the Supreme Court as part of a panel of judges of the First Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court on a claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, the obligation to refute information, and compensation for moral damage.
The plaintiff pointed out that the Ukrainian MP, in an interview with the Pryamiy TV channel, expressed false information about him, which discredited his honor, dignity and business reputation. This information was disseminated in videos and articles on the Internet. The defendants in the dispute were the author of the statements and the television and radio organization that provided the broadcast of the relevant program.
The court of first instance granted the claim. The appellate court changed this decision, indicating that not all statements may be the subject of a violation of the honor, dignity and business reputation of an individual. The appellate court recognized that only one statement was unreliable and discredited the honor, dignity and business reputation of the plaintiff, and therefore subject to refutation, since it contained both a statement about a specific circumstance and the negative nature of the statement, the veracity of which would require proof during the consideration of the case.
The Supreme Court of Justice overturned the previous court decisions in the contested part and refused to satisfy the claim in this part.
The Supreme Court pointed out the erroneousness of such a conclusion by the courts, since in fact the court obliged the defendant to refute information regarding other persons who are essentially mentioned in the context of the entire publication, that is, persons who are not participants in this case and did not apply to the court for the protection of their rights and interests.
Having recognized part of the defendant’s statement as value judgments and the other part as factual statements, the appellate court did not take into account the actual content of the statement as a whole, its context, or its overall direction.
In his statements on the merits, the defendant repeatedly drew the courts’ attention to the circumstances mentioned, but the courts did not give a proper legal assessment of his arguments. In addition, the defendant noted that the statements contested by the plaintiff were taken out of the context of the entire publication, they were exclusively criticism of the activities, assessment of the actions of other public figures and did not concern the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court agreed with such arguments of the cassation appeal, since, recognizing the information in the form of one sentence as unreliable and refuting it, the court did not pay attention to the fact that the court must take into account, evaluate the content and direction of the entire publication (its context). Therefore, one sentence should not be “torn out” of the context of the entire publication when refuting it.
The court of cassation noted that the sentence, which contained information recognized as unreliable by the appellate court, did not contain any factual data on the actions of the plaintiff, the method, or the method of committing illegal actions. Thus, the use of the words “some” and “derebant” indicates that the author of the information expresses his opinion in order to draw attention to a matter of public interest, and not to state a fact.
The panel of judges also emphasized that the plaintiff’s public status and the public interest in him in the performance of his duties indicate broader boundaries of acceptable criticism towards him.
Source: Racurs
I am David Wyatt, a professional writer and journalist for Buna Times. I specialize in the world section of news coverage, where I bring to light stories and issues that affect us globally. As a graduate of Journalism, I have always had the passion to spread knowledge through writing.