The epidemic of legalization
Column Meyer vs. Mörgeli: Going to court hardly encourages a desire for debate. How should civilized people with opposing opinions actually deal with each other in public?
Column Meyer vs. Mörgeli: Going to court hardly encourages a desire for debate. How should civilized people with opposing opinions actually deal with each other in public?
Frank A. Meyer has withdrawn his complaint against Christoph Mörgeli, and he is to be congratulated on this decision. The accusation of using Nazi vocabulary would have bothered me too, especially if it had come from the sly, disgraceful Mörgeli, who was of course taking pleasure in provocation. Still: run to the judge? I really must ask! We are in a fundamentally different business to the judiciary. It's a competition, a battle of opinions if you like, and it should be fought with all ruthlessness - but please where it belongs by virtue of our profession and our mission, namely in public. The public has a right to hear and evaluate the arguments. No order of a mufti will ever tell us what really happened in this dispute. Did Meyer, by calling Blocher a "leader", use inadmissible Nazi vocabulary? Did Mörgeli, by deliberately and maliciously placing the irreproachable left-wing bourgeois Meyer in the worst of all conceivable ideological corners, inadmissibly belittle him?
In the past, such differences were settled at dawn by way of a duel, provided that the parties considered each other capable of satisfying the other. The justice system as it is today is not suitable for resolving such substantive differences for a number of reasons. Firstly, everything takes far too long. Including all appeal periods, it could have taken two or three years before we had a legally binding ruling. Then, with the hectic pace of the real media business, hardly anyone apart from those directly involved would have been interested; in any case, the matter would have had to be re-explained (i.e. the insult repeated) at every stage of the proceedings, thus taking care of the provocateur's business. Secondly, the really important questions are never legally clarified anyway: How do bitter journalistic opponents deal with each other? Or rather: How should civilized people with opposing opinions actually deal with each other in public? With deliberately hurtful denigration? With insulting backlash? Or with silent contempt in the end? Thirdly, what does the dispute over provocative words do for the political (debate) culture: does going to court promote the desire for debate? Or is this costly and annoying route to be used as a subtle means of violence to silence the hated opponent?
Journalists, columnists and participants in the public dialogue should not fall into the trap of legalization. Others are already doing this ad nauseam. Legal cases are currently piling up in every media company. Civil and criminal infringement of personality rights, unfair competition, licensing and copyright issues, confidentiality clauses - the range of instruments of torture is becoming ever more diverse. Those who can afford it are using their financial power. Martin Ebner is taking "Bilanz" editor-in-chief René Lüchinger to court for his criticism of Ebner's role in the Converium deal. The motivation is transparent. A deal like this - no matter how it comes out - has a five- to six-figure price tag for both parties involved. Peanuts for Ebner, but a burden on an editorial budget. The fact that the courts like to use such disputes to express their resentment against the media discreetly but cost-effectively is demonstrated time and again by the cost decisions. For example, the Bernese judiciary acquitted Urs Paul Engeler, editor of Weltwoche, of the charge of having published an allegedly secret document from the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland. But the court awarded him compensation of a paltry 700 francs, which at best is enough for two and a half hours of work by Engeler's lawyer. This has also been confirmed time and again in other cases: Even if the media emerge unscathed from such disputes, they are always left with five-figure sums because of the ridiculous cost decisions - a deliberate and insidious harassment effect intended to achieve hasty compliance and bite inhibition.
Sorry, it's a generalization, but I'll make it anyway: the judiciary doesn't like the media very much. It bullies them wherever it can. Since it has more power at the end of the day, it will always have the upper hand. It is therefore all the more important that we media people keep our distance and don't go to court when we have something to deal with. Our courtroom is the public. Their verdicts are quicker and generally easier to understand.
Karl Lüönd is a freelance journalist and author
Frank A. Meyer has withdrawn his complaint against Christoph Mörgeli, and he is to be congratulated on this decision. The accusation of using Nazi vocabulary would have bothered me too, especially if it had come from the sly, disgraceful Mörgeli, who was of course taking pleasure in provocation. Still: run to the judge? I really must ask! We are in a fundamentally different business to the judiciary. It's a competition, a battle of opinions if you like, and it should be fought with all ruthlessness - but please where it belongs by virtue of our profession and our mission, namely in public. The public has a right to hear and evaluate the arguments. No order of a mufti will ever tell us what really happened in this dispute. Did Meyer, by calling Blocher a "leader", use inadmissible Nazi vocabulary? Did Mörgeli, by deliberately and maliciously placing the irreproachable left-wing bourgeois Meyer in the worst of all conceivable ideological corners, inadmissibly belittle him?
In the past, such differences were settled at dawn by way of a duel, provided that the parties considered each other capable of satisfying the other. The justice system as it is today is not suitable for resolving such substantive differences for a number of reasons. Firstly, everything takes far too long. Including all appeal periods, it could have taken two or three years before we had a legally binding ruling. Then, with the hectic pace of the real media business, hardly anyone apart from those directly involved would have been interested; in any case, the matter would have had to be re-explained (i.e. the insult repeated) at every stage of the proceedings, thus taking care of the provocateur's business. Secondly, the really important questions are never legally clarified anyway: How do bitter journalistic opponents deal with each other? Or rather: How should civilized people with opposing opinions actually deal with each other in public? With deliberately hurtful denigration? With insulting backlash? Or with silent contempt in the end? Thirdly, what does the dispute over provocative words do for the political (debate) culture: does going to court promote the desire for debate? Or is this costly and annoying route to be used as a subtle means of violence to silence the hated opponent?
Journalists, columnists and participants in the public dialogue should not fall into the trap of legalization. Others are already doing this ad nauseam. Legal cases are currently piling up in every media company. Civil and criminal infringement of personality rights, unfair competition, licensing and copyright issues, confidentiality clauses - the range of instruments of torture is becoming ever more diverse. Those who can afford it are using their financial power. Martin Ebner is taking "Bilanz" editor-in-chief René Lüchinger to court for his criticism of Ebner's role in the Converium deal. The motivation is transparent. A deal like this - no matter how it comes out - has a five- to six-figure price tag for both parties involved. Peanuts for Ebner, but a burden on an editorial budget. The fact that the courts like to use such disputes to express their resentment against the media discreetly but cost-effectively is demonstrated time and again by the cost decisions. For example, the Bernese judiciary acquitted Urs Paul Engeler, editor of Weltwoche, of the charge of having published an allegedly secret document from the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland. But the court awarded him compensation of a paltry 700 francs, which at best is enough for two and a half hours of work by Engeler's lawyer. This has also been confirmed time and again in other cases: Even if the media emerge unscathed from such disputes, they are always left with five-figure sums because of the ridiculous cost decisions - a deliberate and insidious harassment effect intended to achieve hasty compliance and bite inhibition.
Sorry, it's a generalization, but I'll make it anyway: the judiciary doesn't like the media very much. It bullies them wherever it can. Since it has more power at the end of the day, it will always have the upper hand. It is therefore all the more important that we media people keep our distance and don't go to court when we have something to deal with. Our courtroom is the public. Their verdicts are quicker and generally easier to understand.
Karl Lüönd is a freelance journalist and author
