Project Updates
(Lack of) freedom of speech and Prague policemen
On Saturday, 25th July 2009, people around the world expressed in different ways their disagreement with the post-election events in the Islamic Republic of Iran, regarding the massive arrests of opponents of the current regime and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Also in Prague there was a protest outside the Iranian embassy, organized by Amnesty International, in which participants wrote in chalk on street the names of the arrested Iranians.
According to Amnesty International, the interested people were allowed to continue in this form of protest for 20 days. The entire event was in their words and they consulted with both the Prague Municipal Police and the Police of the Czech Republic. Still, on Monday 27th July when an activist wanted to start writing, the municipal police assessed her action as an “offence of pollution of public spaces” under § 47 paragraph 1 point. d) Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, and gave her a fine of CZK 1000.
According to the League of Human Rights, such a behavior of municipal police is in conflict with the law and smacks of political overtones. Despite the inconsistent actions of the policemen, when such forms of protest have not previously been sanctioned, the girl's act did not fulfill the features, which must be supplied to satisfy each offense. It is not enough to merely pollute public spaces for committing this kind of offense, but - as with all offenses – there must also be a threat or breach of the interests of the society.
What kind of public interest could be at stake in this case? Isn´t the interest of any democratic society vested in promoting and protecting fundamental human rights and freedoms? In addition, writing in chalk does not pose any radical, irreversible and undesirable intervention in public policy, unless it is accompanied by other illegal activities (for example blocking the road). Otherwise we could arrest small children, or their parents, who draw in chalk on the street outside.
Therefore, the procedure of the municipal police represented inadmissible (and perhaps purpose-built) interference with the fundamental right to freedom of expression, a right that is broadly protected in other democratic countries.
According to the League of Human Rights, such a behavior of municipal police is in conflict with the law and smacks of political overtones. Despite the inconsistent actions of the policemen, when such forms of protest have not previously been sanctioned, the girl's act did not fulfill the features, which must be supplied to satisfy each offense. It is not enough to merely pollute public spaces for committing this kind of offense, but - as with all offenses – there must also be a threat or breach of the interests of the society.
What kind of public interest could be at stake in this case? Isn´t the interest of any democratic society vested in promoting and protecting fundamental human rights and freedoms? In addition, writing in chalk does not pose any radical, irreversible and undesirable intervention in public policy, unless it is accompanied by other illegal activities (for example blocking the road). Otherwise we could arrest small children, or their parents, who draw in chalk on the street outside.
Therefore, the procedure of the municipal police represented inadmissible (and perhaps purpose-built) interference with the fundamental right to freedom of expression, a right that is broadly protected in other democratic countries.




.gif)





.jpg)

.gif)

.jpg)

.gif)

.gif)








.gif)





.jpg)
.jpg)

.jpg)











