|
In independent Ukraine censorship usually is
followed by the law. But in order to satisfy some officials censorship
was restored by … the court! Deputy Head of Kherson Alyona Rotova filed
a suit to weekly "VIK" about reimburesement of 15 thousands
UAH of amende honorable and business reputation. This moral damage was
supposedly made by the publications of the newspaper. Before decision
on this suit Deputy Mayor solicited for the court about prohibition to
"VIK" to publish something about her precious person.
The court was extremely sympathetic to unwillingness of the official person
to read about herself. A Judge Aleksandr Holovko in order to "provide
an independence of the Court" composed to Alyona Rotova an unexampled
decision. While the suit of Deputy Major isn't examined he forbade to
"distribute any information about belonging of Rotova A.I. to an
activity in a sphere of burial and about her violation of demands of Constitution
and Ukraine's Law". This prohibition of "independent" Judge
touches not only radio and newspaper "VIK" but also other persons.
In other words henceforth every newspaper or TV-channel does not have
the right to even give hints to the audience or readers that the co-founder
of limited society "Polis" Alyona Rotova earns her money by
serving Kherson's cemeteries and combines business and administrative
position that she enjoys at the moment.
Editor-in-chief of "VIK" Serhey Osolodkin stated in interview
to our correspondent that the decision of the Court limits freedom of
speech, given by the Constitution. And "to correct" standards
of the Constitution is not in authority of the District Court's Judge.Ïîýòîìó
âåðäèêò Àëåêñàíäðà Ãîëîâêî ðåäàêöèÿ îáæàëóåò â àïåëëÿöèîííîì ñóäå.That's
why an editorial staff is going to appeal the verdict of Oleksandr Holovko
verdict in the Appeal Court.
Deputy Major Alyona Rotova and her daughter Yana Rotova, who is a private
entrepreneur, filed series of suits about honor and dignity protection
to representatives of newspapers "VIK" and "Hryvna".
Rotovy wants journalists to pay astronomical amount in 130 thousands UAH
to thr mother and the daughter! Above-mentioned Judge has adjudged 50
thousands UAH in favour of Alyona Rotova in one suit. To compare: when
at village Chebotaryovka's aerodrome near Kherson military airplane has
crashed, widows of deceased pilots got up to 5 thousands UAH for losing
their breadwinners. Women's compensatory actions were simultaneously declined
by Kherson's courts. Come out, that "air" loss to honor of ordinary
official costs more than life of a Fatherland's protector in native Femida's
eyes.
Vladymyr Aleksandrov.
Lawyer's comment
Aleksandr Burmahin
"… Scopes of permissible critic with respect to
public politics are more extensively than with respect to private person.
First one leaves every word and action open to steadfast analysis of journalists
and society in general inevitably and knowingly, so he must show much
tolerance, especially when he makes public announcements, which could
cause critic, by himself… "
From a decision of European person right's Court (Strasburh c.)
That's a position of European Court not only with respect
to public deputies, ministers and President. Representatives of State
Bodies, Bodies of local Self-government are attributed to a group of "especially
challenged" by Judges. Scopes of critic are wider if a post is higher…
Article 15 of Constitution of Ukraine says, that everyone has a right
to collect freely, keep, use and distribute information verbally, black
and white or by any other method he wants. For every journalist these
regulations have special meaning because they are insurance arrangements
of his professional activity.
Article 2 of Law of Ukraine "About printed mass media facilities
(press) in Ukraine " says: " It isn't admitted to require beforehand
concordance of messages and materials, which are distributed by the printing
mass media, and to forbid distributing of messages and materials for officials
of State Bodies…"
Article 9 Of Ukraine's Law "About information": "all of
Ukraine's citizens, legal persons and State bodies have a right for information.
It provides an opportunity for free reception, using, distributing and
keeping of reductions, which are necessary for their realization of their
rights, freedoms and legal concerns, for implementation of objectives
and functions".
The Judge in his definition has pointed a basis - article 126 of Constitution
of Ukraine. It says that it's prohibited to govern judges by all means.
Here he hasn't explained how the court has found a decision that publications
are means of influence. Over here a general ground is that "in article
defendants have published information which is in consideration of the
court"… It's quite possible to "influence" a court by mass
media. And one of the grounds for restriction of freedom of speech, which
is in article 10 of European convention "About protection of rights
and freedoms of person" is "…providing of authority and equity
of justice". And what does the judge write in definition? "To
forbid LLO "TV-radio company "VIK"… and other persons to
distribute all information about A.I. Rotova's implication to an activity
in burial sphere, about her violation of Ukraine's Constitution's and
Law's norms by mass media means". Stand down that the Judge tried
to protect the Court from irrelevant influence and forbade to ALL MASS
MEDIA to distribute information about violation of Laws and Constitution
by OFFICIAL. It's comparatively strange "hand of help", which
has been drawn by Ukraine's Name…
read also: Decision:
Ms.Rotova vs "VIK: time, events, people" newspaper and Mr. Kyrychenko
|
