Search results

Zbog sužavanja opsega kaznenopravne zaštite časti i ugleda brisanjem kaznenog djela teškog sramoćenja, učinjenog u petoj noveli Kaznenog zakona potkraj 2019., došlo je do zamjetnih nelogičnosti. Ovo istraživanje preispituje razloge te legislativne intervencije kako bi se ocijenila njezina opravdanost. Zbog potrebnog opsega argumentacije, ova se analiza nadovezuje na prethodno objavljeni rad, odnosno istraživanje povijesnih, pozitivnopravnih i poredbenih argumenata. U ovom radu istražujemo konvencijske standarde i stajališta Europskog suda za ljudska prava u primjeni kaznenopravnog mehanizma na području zaštite časti i ugleda kroz dva konvencijska prava - slobodu izražavanja i pravo na privatan život. Ishod pokazuje da je predviđanje kaznenopravnoga mehanizma zaštite časti i ugleda u skladu s konvencijskim standardima te da, s obzirom na jednaku vrijednost oba prava, njihova kvalitetna zaštita zahtijeva uravnoteženo nacionalno rješenje. Ukazuje se da izazovi poštovanja načela razmjernosti podjednako leže i u području građanskog prava pri određivanju iznosa naknade štete. Sveukupno gledajući, prethodno objavljeni argumenti i ovi koje iznosimo sada pokazuju kako razlozi ukidanja teškog sramoćenja koji su bili dostupni javnosti, ne mogu biti dostatni argumenti za ovu legislativnu intervenciju. Stoga se pledira da pro futuro regulacija u ovom osjetljivom području ne bude vođena naglim kaznenopravnim rezovima bez pažljive stručne i argumentirane procjene i konsenzusa oko društvenih potreba. ; Due to the narrowing of the criminal law protection scope regarding honor and reputation, under the fifth amendment to the Criminal Code at the end of 2019, Severe Vilification was deleted which left noticeable illogicalities. Therefore, this research examines the reasons for this legislative intervention, to assess its justification. Due to the required scope of argumentation, this analysis builds on previously published work that has shown research on historical, positive, and comparative arguments. We are now exploring the ...

Freedom of expression is one of the essential elements of modern democratic states' standard for basic civil rights and freedoms. It is most often guaranteed in the constitutions as well as in ratified acts of European and international law. Still, freedom of speech is not absolute, meaning in certain situations it may be restricted to protect another legal value. A prominent example is hate speech, as a means of spreading hatred, hostility and violence towards a person or a particular group. It is not a closed book but widely regarded as a significant violation of human rights. While there is no doubt it constitutes a freedom of speech abuse, the issue of its sanctioning falls within controversial and multifaceted challenges in terms of legislative regulation. The purpose of this article is to compare Polish and Croatian legal systems on this issue. The research will be based on the comparative method, designed to detect similarities, differences and possible patterns in the subject area of the study and to determine the variables affecting the evaluation of current and developed policies in the area of hate speech responsibility and sanctioning. The specific solutions contained in the national constitutional positions, criminal law, misdemeanor law, related body of doctrine and selected case law show a certain diversity of approaches. It can be said that in the area under consideration we are dealing with variants of the same general concept. The results of the conducted analyses will form the basis for further research in the field of amendment of regulations on the punishment of hate speech in the Polish and Croatian legal systems.