The Phenomenon of the Mercenary Press in Iaşi - A Point of View -
The fall of the communist dictatorship brought unexpected freedom after 1989: the freedom of expression, a right of every citizen that could no longer be restricted. Or, according to Art. 30, paragraph (1) of the Constitution: "the freedom of expression of thoughts, opinions or beliefs and the freedom of creations of any kind (...) are inviolable". Under the protection of this guarantee, strengthened by paragraph (2) which decreed that “censorship of any kind is prohibited”, a strong, diverse, influential and rich mass-media flourished in Romania, which, by all means protected by law (written, spoken, image, drawing etc.), became "the fourth power in the state", contributing to support democracy and to limit the inherent slippage of the political class.
However, it was inevitable that, in addition to honest free people, moral professionals and truth defenders, the chaff would appear, "the jukeboxes" that write as they are paid, petty unscrupulous people, willing to get rich by any means, who used these principle freedoms in order to resolve their frustrations and to indulge unhindered in committing crimes. That is because in the same Art. 30 of the fundamental law, there is also paragraph (6), a regulation that unfortunately has remained rather an aspiration than a judicial practice, which clearly provides that “the freedom of expression cannot prejudice the person's dignity, honor, private life, nor the right to own image ”.
One of the whispered explanations given for the generosity of the legal system while tolerating the flagrant abuses of journalists who violated this constitutional regulation was that it was in the public interest to disclose the facts, abuses or embezzlement of dignitaries and those who, because of their position, are subject to the citizens' interest and vigilance. I believe it has been correctly said that, if punishments had been given for articles revealing politicians' acts of corruption (who would have immediately tried to invoke "the right to image"), this would have undermined the public interest in finding out things that any ruling group would have wanted to keep hidden. This resulted in a judicial practice by which public figures, with greater or lesser dignity, could be exposed to public reproach, with or without evidence, without anything happening to the perpetrators, even if some articles violated the constitutional provisions on the dignity, honour and right to image.
Nonetheless, it has been said that the long-term cause is right and that is why even the European Court of Human Rights has expressed a position that supports the journalists' right to disclose even when direct evidence could not be provided.
Nevertheless, in the name of freedom of expression and a presumed public interest, can anything be tolerated? Psychological aggression, defamation, blackmail and, generally, the relentless proliferation of slander, lying, inciting to moral lynching or even explicit violence, that we see horrified in dozens of newspapers and television shows, can be excused so that journalists can be a privileged category, above law, truth, honor and morality? And can any person really be assimilated to the honorable and courageous professional category of journalists?
Like many other innocent citizens, without public offices and without the quality of a public person (as regulated by the law), I, a law practitioner in the liberal profession of lawyer, have been constantly harassed, threatened, soiled, slandered, insulted and assaulted as a woman, as an honorable citizen and as a professional by people who claim to be “journalists” and who use public communication platforms for the dissemination of their “pamphlets” and who have doubtful employers and funding sources. Is this "freedom of expression"? Allow me to also remind you that the state's financial supervision institutions as well as the criminal ones should have investigated the income sources and the financial obligations of these instruments of slander, propaganda and fake news, according to paragraph (5) of the aforementioned Art. 30 throught which the law “may impose on the mass media the obligation to make public the funding source”, whereas paragraph (8) clearly establishes who bears civil responsibility for "the information or creation brought to public knowledge". Moreover, I was astounded to discover that I was not the only victim of this online gang. The same thing occurred to fellow lawyers and to people with social exposure from Iasi (I already have a detailed file with screenshots on this topic) and they were forced to pay significant amounts of money as "protection fee" to this criminal group that blackmailed them in the media, being also the target of a journalistic campaign whose false "revelations" pursued not the public interest, but extortion. Undoubtedly, this is premeditated harassment, committed repeatedly.
What is there to be done given the fact that the journalistic activity is not regulated by clear laws and there are no legal consequences for the ones who knowingly violate the provisions of the Journalist's Ethics Code drafted by the Convention of Media Organizations in Sinaia in July 2004? For the ones who read tabloid publications in Iasi, on paper or only online, it is impossible to find any trace of respect for the inviolable human rights stipulated in international conventions of which Romania is a cosignatory. Where are the honest journalists from these publications who should do their jobs according to the above mentioned Professional Conduct Code that obliges them to comply with the following moral and professional obligations:
2.1.1. The journalist is obliged to respect the presumption of innocence.
2.1.2. The journalist is obliged to respect the person's private life.
2.1.3. The journalist is obliged to take into account the minor' s legitimate interest.
2.1.4. The identity of the victims of accidents, calamities, crimes, especially of sexual assault, must not be disclosed.
2.1.5. The journalist has the obligation not to discriminate against any person on grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or disability and not to incite to hatred and violence.
However, these provisions are only for the ones who do this job with professionalism, good faith and morality. They are not taken into account by media offenders for the simple reason that their violation does not lead to any concrete legal effect. Criminal investigation bodies are reserved about such cases and do not always take action because "it is not possible to prove bad faith" (?), when, in fact, they do not want to "see their names in the press" and they avoid exposure, whereas justice is done by the law, according to the evidence in the case, but also according to the judge's own conscience, as we know very well. However, there are convictions and civil lawsuits won against this type of journalists, but their number is far too small in comparison to the real dimensions of the phenomenon. Moreover, such characters who defy the noble profession of journalist usually make sure that they get divorced, they transfer their assets on somebody else's name, they have no legal employment contracts whereas their employers are hidden, as well as the funding sources, so that a civil lawsuit of moral damages leads nowhere whereas the ones in question simply come before the bailiff without anything that could be confiscated and capitalized. Until the legislator finds it appropriate to turn the financial obligations of those found guilty into mandatory working days for the benefit of the community, this issue will not disappear, whereas the press slanderers will be free to continue their degrading activity and to ruin the good reputation and the essential social function of the press.
I'm thinking, half jokingly and half seriously, of making a newspaper online and, in this newly acquired capacity as a "journalist", to publish weekly the "beautiful" words that were sent to me by the slanderers. But, this time, I will address them to the ones who forgave them, through the lack of reaction of the authorities who considered that the deviant behaviours were the exercise of the right to free speech and their scandalous and unproven statements as "pamphlet" or "information of public interest" , or the ones who encouraged them, by financially supporting the phenomenon. What if? It is a topic that the public opinion should take seriously, and I believe that it should be debated in order to stop these offensive and toxic practices that infest our civilisation and democratic atmosphere, inciting to hatred and violence. Paragraph (7) of the said Article 30 of the Constitution states that: “It is forbidden to slander the country and the nation, to incite to war of aggression, to national, racial, class or religious hatred, incitement to discrimination, to territorial separatism or public violence, as well as obscene manifestations contrary to good manners”.
Authoress,
Lawyer Poroşnicu Gianina Vera
Iași Bar of Lawyers
1 See https://www.paginademedia.ro/2010/05/codul-deontologic-al-jurnalistului-elaborat-de-conventia-organiza- tiilor-de-media/ visited on 05.04.2021