Freedom of Expression vs. Good Name

The conflict between the right to honor, dignity and good name and the right to freely express and disseminate opinion

Honor, dignity, and a good name in society are basic human rights.

„"The private life of citizens is inviolable. Everyone has the right to protection against unlawful interference with his private and family life and against attacks on his honor, dignity and good name."“

Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria.

Any infringement on these values is a gross violation of the law and the right in general. In turn, Art. 39, para. 1 of the Constitution regulates the right to freely express and disseminate opinion, which is essential for strengthening personal freedom and democracy.

In addition, the basic law proclaims that the press and other mass media are free, and the prohibition of censorship is explicitly proclaimed. Freedom of speech is undoubtedly among the most important civil rights. It is an indicator of the development of democracy in a country, fundamental for other fundamental human rights and absolutely necessary for the establishment of a favorable media climate.

Is the right to freely express and disseminate opinion absolute?

Restrictions on freedoms of communication are permissible only for the purpose of protecting other, also constitutionally defensible rights and interests. Freedom of expression and dissemination of opinion extends to the extent that other constitutional values, such as the honor, dignity and good name of a person, are affected.

Cases in practice are not uncommon in which the right to privacy is violated or the honor, dignity and good name of a person are violated through the perverse exercise of the right to freely express and disseminate opinions.

What constitutes exceeding the limits of the right to freely express and disseminate opinion?

Saying or doing something humiliating or undermining the authority and honor of another is a crime - insult.

An important prerequisite for qualifying an act as an insult is that the act was committed in the presence of the victim, which, according to current societal understandings, is indecent, cynical or vulgar. The perception of the insult by the victim is also achieved when the affected person has heard, seen or read the offensive words and expressions in the mass media.

You can see what legal options the victim of an insult has in our articles on the topic here.

This article was provoked by the Supreme Court of Cassation's (SCC) decision in the case of singer Desislava Tenekidzhieva against "Slavi's Show" - read full analysis of the decision here.