Journalist convicted over false posts about Douro following Mati fire
Athens single-judge court imposes eight-month suspended prison sentence on writer-journalist for defamatory libel of former Attica Regional Governor
Athens court convicts journalist over Facebook posts against Rena Douro
The Single-Judge Court of Misdemeanours in Athens issued a first-instance conviction against a writer-journalist for defamatory libel via the internet against former Attica Regional Governor Rena Douro, as reported by Dikastiko.gr. The case concerns a series of posts published on Facebook in August 2018, immediately following the tragedy in Mati.
The court imposed a prison sentence of eight months on the defendant with a monetary penalty suspended for three years. An appeal against the ruling has already been filed, and at trial Ms Douro was represented by lawyers Vassilis Sotiropulos and Yiannis Apatsidis.
Content of the posts
According to the reasoning of the judgment, the defendant systematically portrayed Rena Douro as a politician who chose to continue her "summer holidays" whilst ignoring the scale of the disaster. He even went so far as to claim that, due to her poor performance of her duties, she was "already imprisoned in judicial custody".
In the court's assessment, the hearing revealed a different reality. Based on official documents and daily press releases from the Attica Region, it was proven that Douro had been at the scene of the tragedy from the outset and coordinated disaster management operations.
A characteristic detail noted in the judgment: on 4 August 2018, Douro had granted an extensive interview to Newspaper of the Editors, emphasising that elected officials should be "workers of the state alongside citizens" and not "sit on the sidelines on television panels". Her choice not to appear on television shows was assessed as an institutional communications choice through announcements, which, according to the court, "in no way justifies the publication of false posts".
Professional status as an aggravating factor
The court gave particular weight to the professional status of the defendant. The judges determined that a "notable journalist and writer", by virtue of extensive journalistic coverage of the fire, knew or ought to have known that the claims he was repeating did not correspond to reality.
Particular mention was also made of the methodology of the publications. The defendant posted daily updates and used the tagging function to direct the public directly to Douro's personal profile. This systematic practice, directed at thousands of followers, gave the posts, in the court's view, "specious realism capable of damaging her reputation and standing".
Rejection of the claim of "literary hyperbole"
The defence characterised the published material as "witticisms" and "literary exaggerations". The court rejected this claim. The posts, according to the judgment, were intended neither to inform nor to offer legitimate criticism of a political figure, but to deliberately insult her personally through the dissemination of claims that were judged to be false.
Source: Dikastiko.gr