Written by Besarta Zuka
To slander means to take away another's honor with words, forgetting that with us, words were trust.
In our Albanian culture, words have had weight, because honor has not been simply a name, but a value that cannot be bought or sold.
For us, speech has never been easy. For a long time in Kosovo, defamation and insult have been sanctioned as criminal offense, because false speech was seen as a threat to social order and human honor. Over time and with the approach to European standards, the law has changed its approach; today, defamation and insult are no longer treated as criminal offenses, but are regulated by the Civil Law against Defamation and Insult. This change does not mean that false speech has become permissible, but that liability has taken a different form. Article 3 of this law states that Defamation means the publication of an untrue fact or statement which the publisher knows or should have known to be untrue, the meaning of which damages the reputation of another person.. The law no longer punishes with criminal punishment, but leaves the burden to the author to face the civil consequences of his speech. In essence, modern law does not reduce the weight of speech, on the contrary, it returns it to what it has always been in our culture, trust, responsibility and honor. Because today, just like in the past, a thoughtless and unproven word can ruin another's honor, and honor is not easily restored.
Personally, I don't like watching television, I think it's an excessive consumption of energy and I don't want my opinion about someone or something to be defined by what is shown on television. However, the fact that I avoid sitting in front of the television does not excuse me from being influenced by the phone and social networks, but I leave the justification for this to the development of technology and to her that I want to "keep up with the times".
Recently, global and domestic developments have been quite sensational, both in political, economic and social aspects, which is why we are being served political, economic, semi-humorous and much less educational and scientific shows. It seems as if everyone has the right to criticize, slander, insult and offend in the name of freedom of expression and as if it is a competition of who attacks whom the most.
In a democratic society, it is true that everyone has their own free opinion and can express what they want, but in a democratic society, everyone also has a right to the extent that the rights of others are not violated, therefore nothing is absolute but everything is beautifully interconnected in such a way that we can all live well, be careful and respect each other because only by accepting that we are different can we live together in this world, imposing opinions and the way in which each person decides to live only creates dissatisfaction and consequently an unstable society that does not serve the future at all.
Public criticism is not only permissible, but necessary as it serves as a means of accountability and improvement. However, in recent years, a disturbing phenomenon has been increasingly observed, with criticism being replaced by accusations, opinion by “facts,” and suspicion by public judgment. The dividing line between legitimate criticism and defamation is becoming increasingly blurred.
In public discourse, especially in the media and social networks, the idea that having a personal belief is enough to present it as truth is becoming normalized. This is a dangerous misconception.
Legally, criticism and defamation are not the same thing. Criticism is about subjective evaluation, opinion, or attitude. Defamation, on the other hand, is related to the presentation of concrete, untrue facts as self-evident, with direct consequences for the reputation and dignity of another.
Holders of public office, due to the role they exercise, should undoubtedly have a higher threshold of tolerance for public criticism. This is the logic of a democratic society and this is why the law gives citizens and the media wider space for debate on issues of public interest. However, this tolerance is not without limits. This is where the fine line between criticism and slander lies. According to Article 6 of the Civil Law against Defamation and Insult, proof of the truth When it comes to statements that affect the public interest, the legal protection of the speaker exists only if he has acted responsibly, that is, if he has verified the facts, used reliable sources and has not presented personal suspicions as established truths.. So, criticism is permissible when it expresses an opinion, assessment or concern, it becomes defamation the moment when, in the name of criticism, false statements that are presented as safe and that damage the reputation of a public figure. Therefore, although public officials must endure more criticism than ordinary citizens, no one has the right to use this higher standard of tolerance as a license to slander.
In our culture, we were all raised to respect and care for each other, the one who was older was right because of life experience and not age, we considered our parents, friends, and guests to be saints, and there was nothing wrong with that, now we criticize and offend based on what we call "my opinion."
When someone publicly declares that a person has committed abuses, has obtained wealth illegally, or has acted illegally, these are no longer opinions, they are accusations. And accusations, in a state governed by the rule of law, are not verified in television studios or in comments on social networks, but in institutions and courts.
Another problematic aspect is the misuse of transparency. Instruments such as the declaration of assets of public officials are designed to increase citizen trust and prevent corruption. But transparency is not an invitation to public lynching. Official data cannot be interpreted according to personal desire and transformed into a situation of illegality, without any finding by the competent authorities. When this happens, transparency loses its function and becomes a tool of pressure and discredit.
As this is happening, the courts are flooded with defamation lawsuits and since there are many, even the judges are not taking them seriously, this poses a danger on both sides, where it is no longer known what is the truth and what should not be done. Even those people who exercise public functions must be aware that they are in the public eye and we have the right to demand accountability for the wealth created, but on the other hand, no one gives us the right to express untrue statements just to discredit someone's figure just because they have become "someone" in this life.
For this reason, courts should award compensation in higher amounts, not that non-moral damage can be compensated with a certain amount of money, no matter how large it is, but it is moral satisfaction at least since when untruthful speech is not stopped by culture, then it must be stopped by law, which clearly states in Article 14 that: “Compensation shall be proportionate to the damage caused and shall be awarded solely for the purpose of repairing the damage caused to the reputation of the person concerned, or to compensate for any actual provable financial loss or material damage. In determining compensation, the court is obliged to take into account all the circumstances of the case, in particular any measures taken to mitigate the damage ….” This provision does not limit the court to symbolic amounts, on the contrary, it gives it the responsibility to seriously assess the gravity of the false statement and its consequences. When defamation is committed publicly, with the aim of discrediting and without any attempt at correction or withdrawal, compensation must be sensible and realistic, so that it serves not only to correct the victim's harm, but also as a clear message that false speech has a cost. Only through such an approach can courts stop the normalization of accusations without evidence and return responsibility for speech to where it belongs.
Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of democracy, but it is not absolute. It is always accompanied by responsibility. Speaking publicly means being aware of the consequences of speech. Criticism is healthy, but defamation is not a form of debate, it is a violation of the law.
The normalization of accusations without evidence not only harms individuals, but also harms families, wider social circles, institutions, and thus creates an environment where words lose their weight. In a society where everything is said without responsibility, even the truth becomes suspect. In the end, not only one's reputation is lost, but the very sound standard that has been established over years and years is lost.
If we want a society where criticism has value and speech has weight, we must restore clarity, suspicions are investigated, facts are proven, and responsibility is determined by the court.
Everything else is noise that blurs the line between criticism and slander, a line that must not disappear.
At the end of the day, speech is a test of character. If we use it to build debate, it strengthens democracy; if we use it to destroy honor, it destroys society. Criticism is necessary, but slander is a sign of a lack of responsibility. The law today gives us the means to stop false speech, but culture gives us the reason not to use it. If we want to live in a society where speech has weight and where reputation is not easily violated, we must restore an old Albanian principle: The word is given wisely and kept with honor.Only then does the line between criticism and slander not disappear, but remains where it should be, clear and fair.
Besarta Zuka is a lawyer from the PRO JURIS Law Society.
edition
t7 live
