Press Council: Prison love, wild boars and perpetrator image

Is a newspaper allowed to report on the "new jail love" of a jailed offender? Normally not - but in the case in question, Sonntagsblick acted correctly according to the Press Council. For the Press Council, such reporting is in principle inadmissible, since private matters of a prisoner such as love affairs and marriage plans are none of the public's business. However, if a prisoner himself has previously actively contributed to such topics being discussed publicly in relation to his person, he must put up with it if a medium discusses his alleged new love affair against his will, according to a statement on Tuesday.

The Swiss Press Council rejects a complaint by a prisoner against "Sonntagsblick". In spring 2013, the newspaper reported on a new "prison love affair" of the complainant. In this specific case, the Press Council denies a violation of the privacy of the person concerned, as his case is one of the best known in recent Swiss criminal history. Since he was a public figure because of his offenses, the media were allowed to report on him in an identifying manner even 15 years after his conviction. Here, the duty of consideration for resocialization and the "right to be forgotten" should also be put into perspective.

In contrast, a prisoner's private life, such as love affairs and marriage plans, is basically none of the public's business. According to the Press Council, even if celebrities allow the public to share their private lives to a large extent, it can hardly ever be inferred from this that they completely renounce the protection of their private and intimate sphere. However, since the complainant himself repeatedly actively contributed to these topics being discussed publicly in connection with his person, he must accept that Sonntagsblick makes his alleged new love a media topic against his will.

Discriminating wild boars

Is a satirical article allowed to use an animal metaphor to indirectly spread disparaging prejudices about foreigners? No, says the Press Council. This is because satire may not serve as a cover for spreading discriminatory statements.

The Press Council approves a complaint against a satirical article in the Davos free newspaper "Gipfel Zytig". The latter compared the behavior of wild boars with sentences ("They don't wear headscarves! They don't use stolen bicycles, scooters or BMWs! They don't carry knives!") implicitly with that of foreigners. The punch line of the little photo story was: "But: They are allowed to be shot at!"

In its decision, the Press Council points to the historical tradition of incitement propaganda with animal comparisons. The disparagement of people of other ethnic groups, skin colors, religions, the opposite sex or a different sexual orientation has always used such animal images. Especially often rats, pigs, vermin and bitches were used for this purpose, on which supposed collective characteristics of such groups were superimposed. In the extreme case this goes along with destruction fantasies: Rats and vermin may be exterminated, or, as in this case, wild boars be shot. Even under the self-declared rubric of satire, such comparisons violate paragraph 8 (discrimination) of the "Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists." Already in January, the Press Council reprimanded the Davos paper on grounds of racism (Werbewoche.ch reported).

20 minutes: Perpetrator image was admissible

Does a picture showing a perpetrator immediately after he has committed an attack violate his human dignity? For the Press Council, such a picture is borderline. However, the publication in question did not appear sensationalistic and did not portray the perpetrator in a degrading manner.

In an attack in London in May 2013, two "Islamists" "beheaded" a soldier on the open street. 20 Minuten then published an agency picture on its front page depicting one of the perpetrators with bloody hands and a hatchet as well as a knife in his left hand. The Press Council rejects a complaint against the publication of this picture.

The picture does not show any victims and the crime has neither a local nor a regional reference. Therefore, it could hardly be assumed that the interests of the victims' and perpetrators' relatives would be significantly affected by the publication. From the point of view of the perpetrator's human dignity, it seemed questionable to show him gesticulating with the murder weapon immediately after his crime. However, the picture does not appear sensationalistic and does not demean the perpetrator. Together with the text, it documents the disturbing fact that such an act can happen in the middle of the street of a European capital. The picture - as difficult as it is to look at - therefore contributes significantly to the information. At most, it would have to be examined whether the newspaper should have made the perpetrator's face unrecognizable. Since the complaint does not object to the identification, the Press Council does not go into this aspect in greater detail.