Fifty-eight lawsuits for defamation and libel against journalists from the period 2007-2020 have been compiled in the anthology “The Question of Justice: The Imprisoned Journalists in Bulgaria” by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zhanna Popova, Prof. Snezhana Popova, along with doctoral students and undergraduate students from the Faculty of Journalism at Sofia University.
As they explain, their goal is to systematize the impact of judicial proceedings as a legal means of seeking justice on the work of journalists.
The team that compiled the anthology conducted interviews with sixteen journalists from various media outlets, all responding to the same questions—why a lawsuit was filed against them, what resources the lawyers who defended them utilized, what support they received from their respective editorial offices and colleagues from other media, and the ramifications of the ongoing legal case for the journalist as well as the public perception. Alongside the objective circumstances surrounding the legal cases, the authors summarize and analyze the lawsuits against journalists to highlight the most common reasons journalists are sued in Bulgaria and how this affects their work. They examine whether the journalists’ attitudes towards the judicial system have changed, how it has influenced their sense of justice, and its impact on their understanding of freedom of speech subsequently.
To reach specific conclusions, the compilers do not work with court protocols and decisions but rely solely on media publications concerning the respective cases. This is why the cases recounted by the journalists are not all lawsuits filed against journalists but only those that have media coverage from 2007 to 2020.
Another limitation set by the authors is that they only focus on cases against journalists, not against media outlets. They hope to expand their work in this direction in the future as they expect this to provide another perspective on the media-journalist relationship.
The starting point for the study is the understanding that in open democratic societies, citizens are freer to express themselves than in closed societies controlled by authoritarian regimes. This freedom primarily relates to their ability to discuss issues of public interest, including criticizing those in power. However, in all societies, including the most open, freedom of expression has been and continues to be subject to control through both formal and informal means.
One of the methods of control that, according to the interviewed journalists, serves as a form of limiting freedom of expression are the lawsuits filed against those who write critically.
The study indicates that the most frequent lawsuits against journalists are initiated by politicians and representatives of state institutions. Notably, cases brought by directors of social institutions or their employees hold a special place. In fact, the conditions of social homes have become the basis for journalistic pieces, resulting in plaintiffs subsequently filing lawsuits against the author of the article or the media outlet.
Such is the case with “For the Truth” and the investigation into the former director of “Social Assistance” in Gabrovo, Radostina Bratovanova, who has been seeking justice for nearly a year over allegations that, as a public servant, she was running a private business in the social services sector during working hours and from her office. The Ministry of Labor and Social Policy has confirmed these assertions, but when “For the Truth” brought the situation to light, the director felt offended and slandered, prompting her to demand 10,000 BGN from “For the Truth” to “clean” her name. She lost in two court instances and decided against further appeals. She also lost her government position but remained unpunished.
In second place for the number of lawsuits for defamation and libel against journalists are representatives of local authorities, followed by business representatives, with lawsuits from journalists against other journalists being the least common.
Throughout their work, a new category of cases has emerged involving former journalists who have become politicians and are suing their colleagues, as the compilers of the anthology summarize. This group includes cases from and against Volen Siderov, Nikolai Barekov, Valeri Simeonov, Alexander Simonov, and Elena Yoncheva.
The feeling of being insulted and defamed is often triggered by ironic language and comments on Facebook. Journalistic investigations and opinions expressed in online media or on television are the next sources that provoke feelings of insult and defamation among those who feel aggrieved by journalistic words. Lawsuits arise following a question posed or an opinion expressed in a blog.
An interesting detail is that in some of the cases included in the study, other means of dialogue and conflict resolution were sought, such as agreements or apologies in exchange for “leaving them alone in future elections.”
The judicial process against journalists is considered a form of harassment and pressure by almost all interviewees. Katya Kasabova, founder and journalist at the online publication “Flagman bg,” is adamant that lawsuits for defamation and libel against journalists are primarily aimed at intimidation.
Rosen Bosev from “Capital” believes that we cannot hold someone accountable for turning to the courts, but when that person holds a high state office, it is concerning whether they will exert pressure on the court. Bosev also points out that “lawsuits for defamation and libel have never stopped being a tool for intimidating journalists,” even though some of his colleagues feel “it’s a bit like a medal of bravery to be sued in a country that clearly has issues with the rule of law.”
A journalist cannot have complete immunity; they must take responsibility, believes Yuliana Metodieva, founder and editor-in-chief of “Marginalia”—a media outlet for commentary, analysis, and news in the field of human rights and one of the founders of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee.
According to Venelina Popova, the notion that “the verdict against one serves as a warning to the others” is a leading motive for complaints against journalists (Venelina Popova is a contributor to “For the Truth,” having been sued once as a correspondent for the Bulgarian National Radio and once for a publication in a print media outlet).
The research also indicates that lawsuits for defamation pose
an obstacle to critical journalism
but nonetheless, journalists defend their right to criticize when violations are identified, and testimonies from witnesses or victims of irregularities are documented.
In interviews, journalists from smaller towns share that in these small communities, reporters face significant risks and are subjected to brutal pressure, yet they continue to uphold the weight of defending the profession with dignity. Some of them express that “there is virtually no journalism left in small towns” and that “when a case is confined within a city where the media presence is limited, anything can happen—resulting in a first-instance conviction, and then a second, because the judges know each other and are less likely to confront each other in their decisions.”
Several interviewees mentioned that during the lawsuits against them, they received public support in the form of petitions, protest actions, and more. “Consolations and disappointments come from the same direction—from the society in whose interest journalists are presumed to act,” write the compilers of the anthology. On one hand, there is a sense of victory when publications boost confidence due to positive public feedback, but on the other, there is frustration when citizens do not respond to efforts to bring to light abuses that have occurred using their funds and that have entered the budget in the form of taxes.
“Lawsuits are part of the game, and anyone who takes on this profession has to be aware of this,” is the conclusion drawn by the authors of the anthology. However, the most important aspect is the self-respect of the individual practicing journalism, as the profession itself does not protect them from negative emotions and disappointments, writes Prof. Snezhana Popova, who states that “this is the message of the experiences gathered in this book.”
