Spiess-Hegglin wins in court - Binswanger does not give up
Zurich-based journalist Michèle Binswanger is barred from publishing a book about Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin’s alleged actions at the 2014 Zug Landammann celebration. The Zug Cantonal Court has upheld a super-provisional injunction issued in May 2020.
(Image: Youtube.com)
The former Zug cantonal councilor Spiess-Hegglin justified her application for a ban by saying that she wanted to prevent the author and Tages-Anzeiger journalist Binswanger from writing about her in a way that violated her personality. Binswanger had already written about her in a hurtful way in the past.
Binswanger is working on a book project about the Landammann celebration. Spiess-Hegglin has made a credible case for the measures she requested, the court writes. It was to be expected that the book would concern Spiess-Hegglin's intimate and secret sphere without her will and would thus violate her personality. The court also relied on a tweet that Binswanger had sent.
However, the last word has not yet been spoken. Tamedia, Binswanger's employer, said it would appeal the ruling. The Zug Cantonal Court forbade the journalist from writing about a topic in advance. Such a far-reaching restriction of media freedom is "highly questionable".
Unresolved incidents
What exactly happened at the party almost six years ago remains unclear. From a criminal law perspective, the incidents, which involved a possible sexual offense, are closed. The case grew into a media affair, with Spiess-Hegglin at its center.
According to the ruling, Binswanger is not allowed to publish anything about the reported actions of Spiess-Hegglin at the Landammann celebration. As a sanction, the journalist is threatened with a fine.
Binswanger had opposed the ban, arguing that it would effectively prohibit her from writing about the topic. A ban would be disproportionate, would prohibit her to a certain extent from practicing her profession and would violate her economic freedom.
Contested public interest
Binswanger also claimed that the events at the Landammann celebration had been discussed in detail in the media, also with the participation of Spiess-Hegglin. A publication ban would be censorship against an individual journalist and would not be compatible with freedom of opinion. Binswanger also claimed a public interest in the topic.
However, the court wrote that it was questionable whether Spiess-Hegglin could still be considered a public figure. In addition, violations of personality would not be blunted by repetition. From Spiess-Hegglin's behavior in the aftermath of the Landammann celebration, it should not be concluded that she agreed to a further and more profound "screening of this matter".
The cantonal court did not accept Binswanger's arguments about censorship and disbarment. The journalist could find enough other topics and was not dependent on reporting on the Landammann celebration. Moreover, it was possible for her to write about other topics related to the Landammann celebration - such as the role of the media, the judiciary and politics - but with due respect for Spiess-Hegglin's personal rights.
According to the verdict, Binswanger is to pay the court costs of CHF 10,000 and Spiess-Hegglin a party fee. (SDA)
