The regional court in Bratislava has ruled against the petition of partner of financial group Penta, Jaroslav Hascak, for a preliminary injunction to get the reports on the Gorilla corruption allegations removed from the internet, according to information of daily Hospodarske Noviny.
The ruling means the so-called Gorilla reports, which outline suspected crony ties and meetings between politicians and the business sphere, can remain on the 13 portals that were the target of Hascak’s petition.
The verdict is based on how even though the facts in the Gorilla reports (produced by the Slovak secret service SIS) has not yet been demonstrated, the public should be given the chance in a democratic society to examine them anyway and so open up public discussion. One of the internet service providers said the petition was not feasible anyway, as it would be absurd for them to stop other people’s websites.
Hascak was successful with an earlier petition, when he got the book of investigative journalist Tom Nicholson banned from being published pending an official verdict. In both cases, Hascak was contesting that the as yet unproven allegations were damaging his good name. The reports contain various alleged conversations between Hascak and top public figures with talk of backhander commissions for help with privatisation and public orders, for instance.
Whether or not Nicholson’s book will see light of day should be known in June, when the Regional Court in Bratislava will rule on Nicholson’s appeal against the injunction imposed on the book by the court of first instance, the District Court of Bratislava. By chance, the case was presided over by judge Branislav Kral, who has been linked to some dubious verdicts in the past.
George – I agree no one should his or her privacy intruded upon but as I understand it, Benta are attempting to deny public access to allegations of suspect business practices involving public officials.
What Mr. Hascak does in his private life is his business and his privacy should be respected, however he was granted the original injuction on the grounds that the allegations were damaging to his “good name”. Nicholson may be telling porkies, he may well have defamed Mr. Hascak, surely it would put the matter to rest once and for all if he actually challenged the allegations but, and this is my point, he hasn’t.
ID cards and micro-chipping your kids – I’m on the fence on both of these subjects, both have their pros and cons, my gut instinct is to say no but the jury is still out digesting the issues.
I am sorry, the World should not start to accept the premise that `if you have nothing to hide` then people , such a news reporter just looking for a good story to make money, have the default Right, to invade your personal privacy without some Legal caveat . The UK Government and their supporters of the introduction of ID Cards used this arguement when trying to get us all to have to have these invasive Cards that track your life , just thrust upon us . In the US , their is a firm prepared to under the skin micro chip a new born baby`s all on the the premise it was for family security ….What next !
Whilst like you, I believe Hascak has lots to hide …print and be dammed is hardly the way forward …BTW , whoever said Nicholson was person who`s word you could trust ???? He wants to sell his book as he is broke !
Agree with you Dave. If you got nothing to hide then you ignore what is being published unless what being published is close to the truth.
Benta’s actions on this matter may lead people to believe that they do have something to hide. Applying for un-enforcable court rulings, presumably at considerable cost, in an attempt to prevent Mr. Nicholson’s alegations being in the public domain rather than initiating libel and slander actions accompanied with claims for damages and compensation does appear a rather odd way of defending one’s good name. I wonder why?
Courts aside, Mr. Nicholson et al are welcome to send their data to me. I’ll make certain that it achieves internet immortality.