Article 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland states that: “Everyone is guaranteed the freedom to express his views and to get and disseminate information. This provision besides provides that preventive censorship of mass media and press licensing are prohibited."
Notwithstanding national law, freedom of expression is besides guaranteed by acts of global law. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Every man has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the another hand, gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to have views and to receive and transmit information and ideas, without interference from public authorities and regardless of national borders. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union besides provides akin guarantees.
That's the letter of the law. What does it look like in practice? The fact is that both in Poland and in another European countries – freedom of expression and the right to express their beliefs are systematically restricted. The pretext for specified actions is the fight against the alleged "talk of hatred". This concept has become very fashionable recently, although it is truly hard to define, vague and instrumentally utilized for the current political struggle. It usually serves to defend various types of minorities, allegedly exposed to discrimination. As a result, in the name of political correctness and the fight against the “talk of hatred” the scope of freedom of speech becomes narrower. This process takes place in different ways.
Firstly, there is censorship on the Internet, and in peculiar within alleged social media. For 1 politically incorrect sentence, or even for the usage of circumstantial words and terms, you can be blocked or in the case of channels that make movie material available – demonetized. There are circumstantial algorithms that capture undesirable content. Of course, complaints can be made, but this frequently resembles a proverbial fight against windmills. Secondly, besides sincere a presentation of your views, and especially besides strong criticism of certain individuals or environments, can exposure us to serious legal consequences.
As an argument for limiting freedom of expression, the message appears that freedom of speech is not of an absolute nature, but a limit that cannot be exceeded by the rights and individual interests of others. In principle, the above argument can be accepted. The question, however, is whether this apparatus of the state should restrict constitutional freedom of expression and expression by criminal and administrative means? Each victim has the chance to assert his or her civilian rights and claims. The problem besides lies in the fact that the boundary between permitted criticism and individual property violations is sometimes very fluid and depends on interpretation. This includes, among another things, the defendants of the accusation of private insult offences (Article 216 of the Code) and defamation (Article 212 of the Code).
However, let us look at another rules that introduce legal restrictions on freedom of speech. This applies, for example, to Article 257 of the Criminal Code, which states that those who publically insult a population group or a peculiar individual due to their national, ethnic, racial, spiritual or non-denominational affiliation are subject to imprisonment for up to 3 years. Of course, insulting any of the above-mentioned causes is an undesirable phenomenon, but this does not change the fact that this regulation gives area for various abuses and over-interpretations. This was experienced by a social media net user who posted messages condemning flagism. The presentation of the charges was absurd enough, that as it is widely known there is no flag nation, as well as not all Ukrainians are supporters of the ideology of flagism. Equally risky are negative statements about judaic people and their function in Polish history. You can always be accused of anti-Semitism, considered a form of racism. However, I have not heard about the accusation of insulting the Russian people, despite the fact that the media is full of hateful statements and entries concerning Russia and the Russians (and not always due to the war in Ukraine). As you can see, the “wiseness of the stage” determines everything.
For akin reasons, Article 256 § 1 of the Penal Code, which provides for imprisonment of up to 3 years for the promotion of Nazi, communist, fascist or another totalitarian state regime, or for the incitement to hatred against national, ethnic, racial, spiritual differences or due to undenominationality, can besides be interpreted reasonably freely. Apart from the apparent situation, we may be dealing with questionable and debateable cases. And this is not about the case of a translation of known gestures wanting to order 5 beers.
This is more serious. The self-definition of Nazism, fascism, or communism is simply a hard task for historians, let alone for lawyers. Disputes besides revolve around the concept of totalitarianism. any environments accept the absurd explanation of Fascism – most frequently as part of the current political conflict and without any context with historical facts. For example, the fallen and rightly forgotten politician Janusz Palikot referred to Roman Dmowski as "fascist, Nazi and anti-semite" [1]. Interestingly, leftist-liberal environments, so frequently tracking “we bring fascism”, do not see a problem in promoting ideology and flagism. As is well known, the majority of the Sejm headed by the Civic Coalition opposed the amendment of Article 256(1) of the Code providing for the penalisation of flagism.
Article 117 § 3 of the Penal Code, which refers to calling for the initiation or public approval of an assault war, besides provides a wide scope for free interpretation. Doubts arise in the case of the very word of the assault war. Can an armed consequence to many provocations of the another organization be considered an assault war? Does the possible terrorist threat give emergence to armed aggression against another country? So was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq involving Polish soldiers an assault war? As is widely known, the above activities were not sanctioned by the UN safety Council and were incompatible with the UN Charter and, contrary to popular propaganda, no active production programmes were found in Iraq and no decks of weapons of mass destruction. Is anyone liable in this case, not even for praising the assault war, but even for drawing Poland into specified a war? I have besides not heard of allegations against those who publically approve of Israel's invasion of Iran, or the US attack on Venezuela, to halt at these examples only.
In the title of summing up any statistics. If you believe the data available on the planet of statistic website – the ranking of countries with the highest number of arrests for online entries is led by Britain with over 12,000 arrested. In this ignominious ranking, the following places are taken: Belarus (more than 6000), Germany (more than 3500) and China (about 1500). In the case of Poland, the number of about 300 arrested was indicated. Prosecutor of the National Prosecutor's Office Przemysław Nowak did not confirm these data, stating that "he has no thought where they got it and what it means" [2]
Michał Radzikowski
[1] "Palikot: Dmowski? Fascist, Nazi, anti-semita" — https://sport.wprost.pl/, November 10, 2012,
[2] Gabriela Siczkowska: “Poland at the global top of arrests for entries” on the network. "Where did they get it" — Konkret24 Poland, January 11, 2026.
