In Janez Janša’s sentence, the Celje court showed how little it cares about the established legal order, the law and the consequences of its decisions on the lives of individuals. Namely, if one plain tweet, in which you defend yourself against the attacks of journalists, is considered offensive, then any statement made by journalists about a group of people or individuals can be considered offensive as well.
If Prime Minister Marjan Šarec supports the advertising ban in the media, which supposedly spreads hostile content, then it is necessary to ask what this means for the public television as well. The public television has published appeals in the past that went as far as calling for the deaths of the President of the SDS Party, Janez Janša, his supporters, and there were appeals to kill political opponents as well.
If the court decides to take all statements so literally, it is only right that the direct calls to violence are sanctioned as well. It is expected that the higher court annuls this absurd judgment. However, this only shows that the lower levels of the Slovenian courts are not governed by the law, but by political activism and with it some are collecting points for a springboard to an appropriate position.
The tweet in which he labeled RTVS journalists Eugenia Carl and Mojca Pašek Šetinc as media prostitutes, Janša denied that he meant this in the sense of the word that suggests receiving payment in exchange for sexual services. He explained that the context was clear to everyone, the words were used in terms of journalists who are selling their professional services. Often, in English, the term “presstitute” is used.
Another question arises, under these new conditions of restricting freedom of speech. What does this mean for Pašek Šetinc, who acknowledged in court that she co-organized a manifestation at a public session of the RTVS, which waved a poster with the words: “Death to Janšism, Freedom to the People”. Something like this should be unacceptable on public television, which should serve all citizens and strive for impartiality. It would be expected, however, that such a move would lead to immediate termination of employment.
Another worrying statement was made by the controversial imitator, Ivo Godnič. He suggested, on public television, that “those eight percent” who do not support Tito should be thrown into Barbara’s trench “because they have vacated Barbara, have they not? There is a lot of free space there now”. The TV and studio presenters found the joke on mass murdering those with differing opinions funny.
They should stop and think about it at the RTVS. Their employees are digging a pit for them with their lawsuit. A non-context-based court decision means that any statement in the public space, whether on a private Twitter profile or one made on public television, may be subjected to a lawsuit by the offended. Considering how journalist Carl called protesters outside the court as protesters for pay, they therefore all have the right to sue her, for she has offended them.