The court explained the voter silence

At the time of PKW under the leadership of “forest grandparents”, president Stefan Jaworski answered many questions, which is, and is not, a breach of election silence, gave answers which warmed and at the same time entertained the net community. The question afraid the alleged "slutting", i.e. liking the entry or comment on popular "socialists". PKW president Stefan Jaworski replied that specified action is simply a form of electoral agitation and is subject to fines. In 2015, the same question was heard by Rafał Tkacz from PKW and softened his position from 2014, The weaver stated that this might be a breach of election silence, but the evaluation belongs to law enforcement.

The discussion around the rules on election silence has continued since their introduction and the votes have always been divided. About the same number of opponents and supporters of the regulations cited their arguments. The crowning argument of supporters is time to reflect, which surely helps silence. After many months of empty promises, screaming, scaring and showing false concern for Poles, even the most resilient citizens can get lost and these 2 days of peace give a chance to organize their thoughts. A akin argument would have a profound meaning if it had not been for the reality that overtook the intentions of the legislators, so the argument of opponents of election silence seems stronger. In the Internet, these are simply fictional bans or, as lawyers say, "dead regulations".

Theoretically, 2 days before the election, you must not print anything that bears the agitation mark, in practice all archived entries are inactive available online and easy to reach. Under these circumstances, there is no way to avoid the impression that the bill, usually in the world, does not withstand the trial of time and needs to be corrected. However, as long as the current government is in force, law enforcement authorities and courts must deal with their interpretation, not only with respect to "devils", but besides with the very popular pasting of the ballot with the candidate's name outlined. In the case of akin online publications, there are 2 key issues related to the grounds for breaking electoral silence, which are included in:

Article 105.
§ 1. The electoral agenda is to publically urge or encourage a certain vote, including in peculiar to vote as a candidate for a circumstantial election committee.

Article 498.
Who, in connection with elections, is subject to fines from the end of the election run until the end of the vote.

It is clear from the above articles that the prosecution and yet the courts should decently interpret ‘agitation’ and ‘public inducement’. In the order of the Rejow Court in Złotoryia of 10 December 2025, the mention to Act II In 881/25 specified explanation appears and, given the quality of the Polish judiciary, amazes with logic, consistency and common sense:

Given that the defendant's post has been posted on a popular online profile, observed by more than 50,000 people, and that the photograph itself, according to the information contained in the file, was to be "liked" by more than 4,000 people, the mark of public action cannot be called into question in the Court's opinion. The question of encouraging or encouraging a certain vote should be addressed differently.

Given the alternatively general nature of the definition of agitation contained in the electoral code, as well as the basic rule in criminal or criminal proceedings concerning the definition of the act, it is not easy to see the border between agitation and the political or public debate yet allowed. However, where a individual publically displays a ballot card with a voice on a peculiar candidate and at the same time the views of that individual are not secret, and the audiences of the content published by that individual follow akin views, they shall not be deemed to be public inducement or encouragement.

In short, the court has come to the right conclusion that the publication of the ballot with the name of the candidate outlined on a popular portal for apparent reasons, it is simply a public action, but this action cannot be considered as aggitation, due to the fact that it has not convinced anyone or anything. akin provisions should be made in cases relating to ‘slaping’ if at all and whenever any prosecutor dares to press specified absurd charges. Finally, it is worth noting that the resolution was issued by Asessor Michał Darczuk, contemptiblely referred to by the current minister of justice as a “neossier” and possibly this is the full mystery of the quality of this ruling.

We don't believe anyone, we don't believe anything! We look at facts and draw conclusions!