It is necessary to realize that adding personal, unedited comments on the Internet is perceived by the courts as an expression of freedom of speech - i.e. as a basic human right and also as one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. In today's world, Internet content is increasingly created by users themselves, and court decisions show that this is an expression of this right, which is generally very important. User comments on articles presented on the Internet often provoke serious debates in society and inform about issues that were not publicly known, thereby contributing to the initiation of journalistic investigations. Independent assessment of services contributes to the transparency of the services provided and their improvement. The opportunity for "everyone" to contribute to public discussion is a sign of advanced democracy and fulfills the goals of freedom of expression guaranteed not only by conventions and charters on human rights, but also by European regulation of the Internet environment.

From the jurisprudence of the Czech Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, it follows that freedom of expression applies not only to information" or ideas" received favorably or considered harmless or unimportant, but also to those that are unpleasant, shocking or disturbing. This is what plurality, tolerance and the spirit of openness want, without which there is no democratic society. However, if critical speech or negative evaluation exceeds the level of acceptability towards so-called "hate speech", i.e. speech that contains threats, insults, obscene speech or vulgarity, incites hostility, violence or illegal activities, it can be in the interest of the conflicting human right to the protection of personality and good reputation to prohibit, or to censor (see, for example, the decision of the Supreme Court file no. 30 Cdo 3012/2010 or the decision of the ECtHR in the Delphi vs. Estonia case, Complaint No. 64569/09 of June 16, 2015).

If the operator of the internet portal does not actively intervene, unless it is "hate speech", which he is obliged to monitor for a change, the courts will very likely consider the publication of negative comments to be an expression of freedom of speech. Although a company damaged in this way can object to a violation of personal rights and rights to a commercial company, anti-competitive behavior or violation of the provisions of § 5 of Act No. 480/2004 Coll., on certain services of the information society, as amended, it will probably not be successful.

Just as PROLUX Consulting Int., s. r. o., which sued the Internet portal Mesec.cz, was not successful. The case that reached the Supreme Court (file no. 23 Cdo 2623/2011 dated 31.07.2013) did not develop very favorably for the plaintiff right from the beginning. PROLUX Consulting Int., s. r. o., which operates as a real estate agency, sued for interference with the good reputation that should have occurred in the discussion of the article "Do you want to sell an apartment: Alone or with a real estate agency?" located on the Internet portal Mesec.cz, while it was about in particular the statements "PROLUX lies like pigs", "eliminate PROLUX", "Hello, I am also a victim of the characterless and lying company PROLUX" and demanded the deletion of the entire discussion thread under the article where these negative evaluations of the plaintiff were published.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in Prague, which refused to impose on the defendant operator of the Mesec.cz portal the obligation to remove the entire relevant discussion thread under the article and only ordered the removal of the phrase "like swine". We would also like to draw your attention to the fact that both the Municipal Court in Prague, as a court of first instance, as well as the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court, rejected the plaintiff's claim to the reasonable satisfaction requested in the amount of CZK 50,000 and the plaintiff was not even granted the right to reimbursement of court costs dispute. The High Court and the Supreme Court both concluded that although these were negative comments about the plaintiff, none of the information contained therein could be considered patently illegal, obviously untrue or defamatory. The defendant operator of the portal was thus not found liable for these comments.

If it is not the already mentioned "hate speech" or if it is not obvious manipulation or false information, we therefore recommend learning to work with negative evaluations. It is possible, for example, to demand the right of reply from the operator of the internet portal. Rather, try to face the problem head on and be more actively involved in communication with the public.
 
For the CHS LEGAL law office team:
Mgr. Beata Sabolová, lawyer
Mgr. Jaroslav Hroza, partner