Response of the Czech President Václav Klaus to the letter sent by Czech editors-in-chief

February 12th, 2009

Dear Mrs Hanáková, dear Sirs,

I have received your letter in which you ask me to return the amendment of the Penal Code and Criminal Law to the Parliament for examination (it is not “veto” as you wrongly assume).

Recently, I have been responding to similar requests of both individuals and professional organizations of publishers and journalists quite often. In fact, your letter signed by the editors-in-chief of the major Czech media and also, again, by the Chairman of the Syndicate of Journalists whom I have already responded to his letter is the best proof of the strong lobbyist pressure. It shows that a part of the new amendment, namely the ban on publishing of police wiretapping records, leaked unlawfully from police investigation (before court trial), is of major interest to your professional and business group.

I do understand this interest. I do understand that some journalists boost their professional status and popularity by unlawful publishing of information that have the potential (and it has happened many times in the past) to damage irremediably the reputation, honour and future chances of innocent people. I do understand that in today’s concept of the media business the boosting of audience rate is the key criterion for success – and this is directly reflected in business success (oddly enough, this holds equally true for the public media). These interests are quite legitimate. What is illegitimate, however, is to use the public interest to argue in favour of these particular interests. It cannot be the professional group itself that marks its interest as a “public” one; only an independent court can do this – and only ex post, as each case is different, individual and it cannot be generalized.

I disagree with your opinion that the “amendment leaves the judges no room for their own consideration and widely criminalizes activity that is usually not serious for the society.” I think the contrary is the case. The new amendment will provide higher protection for the individual citizen against the interests of a powerful and influential professional and business lobby.

I think your idea that “the amendment widely criminalizes an activity that is usually not of major danger for the society” is fairly illustrative. Truly, I don’t know how you have come to such certainty. It shows that the editors-in-chief of all the major Czech media are not only convinced that the journalists have the right to publish unlawfully obtained police materials and thus to contribute to the multiplication of criminal activity, but also that they consider themselves to be the judges of their own activity.

In this sense, your letter has, again, opened my eyes a bit more.

As far as other arguments on behalf of the new amendment, I would like refer you to the response – published without my knowledge – to the Chairman of the Syndicate of Journalists. Since he is one of the persons signed under your letter, I will make this response to your letter public too.

I do believe that your understand that as the President of the Czech Republic I will, when balancing two important interests, which are both equally supported by the Constitution, always take position with the weaker one, the one for whom it is much more difficult to claim their rights and liberties, i.e. the individual citizen.