SF: Source protection for blog commentary
The Federal Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling in favor of media freedom: Media companies may withhold the identities of blog commenters from the courts, provided their comments contain a minimum amount of information.
With its decision, the First Public Law Division of the Federal Supreme Court has upheld an appeal by Swiss Television (SF), as reported by SDA on Wednesday. The case revolves around a blog from 2009 on the SF homepage for the program "Alpenfestung, Leben im Reduit". A person had written a comment under a false name, which made less reference to the blog than to a private account. Because of this post, the Zug public prosecutor's office received a complaint against unknown persons for defamation and misuse of a telecommunications system.
The public prosecutor subsequently asked SF to provide it with the IP address of the author of the blog commentary. SF, however, invoked the protection of sources for media companies provided for in Article 28 of the Swiss Criminal Code. This provision allows regular media outlets to refuse to disclose the identity of informants to the prosecution authorities. In this case, however, the editors themselves must answer for any criminal content of the article - such as defamation or libel.
Great importance for media freedom
In their deliberations on Wednesday, the judges in Lausanne have now decided that media companies can in principle also invoke this protection of sources with regard to the authors of comments on blogs on their websites. The prerequisite is that the commentary contains a minimum amount of information. However, there are no high requirements to be met, especially as it is not always easy to distinguish between information and entertainment in certain forms of journalism nowadays.
In the specific case, at least part of the commentary was informative, which is why SF could invoke the protection of sources. Several judges emphasized that Wednesday's decision was of great importance for editorial secrecy and media freedom. It protects the watchdog function of the media in Switzerland.
The public prosecutor subsequently asked SF to provide it with the IP address of the author of the blog commentary. SF, however, invoked the protection of sources for media companies provided for in Article 28 of the Swiss Criminal Code. This provision allows regular media outlets to refuse to disclose the identity of informants to the prosecution authorities. In this case, however, the editors themselves must answer for any criminal content of the article - such as defamation or libel.
Great importance for media freedom
In their deliberations on Wednesday, the judges in Lausanne have now decided that media companies can in principle also invoke this protection of sources with regard to the authors of comments on blogs on their websites. The prerequisite is that the commentary contains a minimum amount of information. However, there are no high requirements to be met, especially as it is not always easy to distinguish between information and entertainment in certain forms of journalism nowadays.
In the specific case, at least part of the commentary was informative, which is why SF could invoke the protection of sources. Several judges emphasized that Wednesday's decision was of great importance for editorial secrecy and media freedom. It protects the watchdog function of the media in Switzerland.
