In what appears to be an alarming escalation of state overreach, Polish authorities recently arrested an individual over a social media post that they deemed “disinformation.” According to Inspector Marek Boroń, head of the national police, this person allegedly spread false information about so-called “looters” in the Lądek-Zdrój area, which the police assert hindered ongoing rescue efforts. Boroń declared that the individual will be prosecuted under Article 172 of the Penal Code, which deals with obstructing rescue operations—an offence punishable by up to five years in prison.
The incident has sparked outrage and disbelief across the internet, with many rightfully questioning whether we are now arresting people for online posts. Is it truly reasonable to claim that a Facebook post can “obstruct” a rescue operation? As the social media profile “Glina Po Godzinach,” managed by an off-duty police officer, pointed out, this is venturing into the realm of absurdity.
The Slippery Slope to Thought Policing
The author of the “Glina Po Godzinach” profile didn’t mince words, likening the situation to “a new level of absurdity” and “science fiction.” The core of the criticism? Using Article 172, a law designed to punish those who physically obstruct rescue efforts, to go after someone for mere words on a screen. According to the officer behind the account, the law should only apply to tangible interference—like blocking roads or physically impeding emergency personnel—not to a post on Facebook that a few people might have shared.
And this raises an important point: are we now redefining what it means to obstruct justice? If a single social media post can land you in prison for “hindering” a rescue operation, then what’s next? Arresting someone for expressing scepticism about the government’s response to natural disasters? This case sets a chilling precedent for what could easily become widespread censorship disguised as public safety.
Disinformation or Dissent?
What’s more concerning is the context in which this arrest occurred. According to the police, this incident was part of a broader sweep against online “disinformation.” They claim to have identified over 20 social media accounts spreading misleading or false information about the police’s response to the recent flooding. But here’s the real question: who gets to define what counts as disinformation?
In an era where trust in government institutions is at an all-time low, many citizens have legitimate questions about the effectiveness of state responses to crises. Labelling their concerns as “disinformation” and threatening criminal prosecution is not only heavy-handed—it’s dangerously authoritarian.
By filtering and censoring online discussions, the government appears more interested in controlling the narrative than addressing the public’s concerns. After all, the post in question—about “armed looters” and “staged interviews”—was quickly removed, yet the police still pursued legal action. It begs the question: was this really about public safety, or is it about silencing dissent?
A Dangerous Legal Precedent
At the heart of this controversy is the misuse of Article 172 of the Penal Code, a law meant to protect lives and property during emergencies. Traditionally, this article has applied to individuals who physically block or disrupt rescue efforts. Think of someone parking their car in front of a fire hydrant or protesters blocking an ambulance route. Now, however, we are seeing it stretched to target speech—something entirely different.
As “Glina Po Godzinach” pointed out, using this article against online posts represents a grotesque misapplication of the law. Speech, however irresponsible, is not the same as physically blocking a rescue operation. If we begin conflating the two, where do we draw the line? Does sharing a meme about government incompetence qualify as obstruction of justice? What about tweeting scepticism about emergency response times?
🚨🚨Czekaj, czekaj- czy ja dobrze słyszę??? Mam nadzieję, że się mylę, bo jeśli nie, to właśnie wchodzimy na całkiem nowy poziom absurdu: pierwszy przypadek zatrzymania za post w social media, który nie jest zniesławieniem czy groźbami, za to rzekomo przeszkadzał w akcji… pic.twitter.com/J28fxxrrH5
— Glina Po Godzinach (@Glina_Po_Godz) September 18, 2024
The attempt to criminalize speech is not just an overreaction—it’s a slippery slope toward curbing basic freedoms. And the ramifications are immense. Poland, like many other Western democracies, prides itself on free speech and civil liberties. But in cases like these, we risk eroding those very freedoms under the guise of “public safety.”
The Broader Implications
The arrest has sent shockwaves across Poland, igniting a debate about the role of free speech in a modern democracy. Are we truly willing to accept a future where online comments can lead to arrests? The government’s heavy-handed approach suggests that, instead of addressing the root causes of public unrest or disinformation, they would rather silence those who question their authority.