Czy potrzebujemy art. 135 § 2 Kodeksu karnego? Kilka uwag na marginesie glosy Jana Kuleszy, Wolność wypowiedzi contra godność urzędu Prezydenta RP. Glosa do wyroku Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z 30.09.2022 r., sygn. akt II Aka 110/22, „Przegląd Sądo
Do we need Article 135 § 2 of the Criminal Code? A few remarks on the margin of Jan Kulesza’s gloss Freedom of expression and protection of the office of the President of the Republic of Poland. Commentary on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Wa

Summary/Abstract: The article contains a polemic with Jan Kulesza’s commentary in “Przegląd Sądowy” 4/2023. The author of the polemic was critical of the arguments of J. Kulesza, who positively assessed the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings based on the premise of negligible social harmfulness of the act. It is difficult to agree with the court’s reasoning in the context of all the circumstances of the case J.Ż. – a publicist and writer, the use of the word “moron” is not an insult, because the entire statement should be taken into account, not the offensive word. The use of the word the word “moron” was an integral part of the entire statement. Secondly, according to the author of the polemic, J. Kulesza’s commentary touched on the problem of decriminalization of ar- ticle 135 § 2 c. c. Court practice is reluctant to apply this provision, discontinuing cases based on a negative procedural premise may indicate actual decriminalization. The text notes that there may be a need for research in the field of sociology of law regarding the perception of the provision of Article 135 § 2 c.c. in the community of practising lawyers.

• Details
• Contents