 |
| Statue of Johannes Gutenberg at Strasbourg (Picture I) |
Kimmo Huosionmaa
In the trial against MV-lehti and Ilya Janitskyn, is the question about the right to write about thigs, what would be not tolerated in the old fashion media, and at the same time the court is metering the limits of the writings in social media. And at the same time would somebody looking for the decision about the writer of social media right to use the name "magazine" in their homepages. But also we are facing the problem of the journalism, what is the very complicated thing.
Normally freedom of speech is meaning, that every person has right to make that kind of writings what he or she wants, but there would be no answer, what to do when if the opinion of the writer is against the opinion of the line of the magazine. And it is problematic because the journalist is in the similar relationship for the employer as the normal worker. So if the employer wants, the content of the text should follow the line of the magazine or media house.
But is the case, where the head journalist wants that the henchman changes the content against freedom of speech? And what to do, if some journalist would make the publications same time in the magazines like MV-lehti, what are actually the social media channels? Here we must also ask another question about the publications like MV-lehti, and that is very complicated: should that channel mention, that there is a "Facebook-style" channel, and would the persons, who own that channel also have the responsibility to moderate the writings, what are published in that media.
And what to do, if some journalist would write to those social media- magazines in their free time. That means that nothing limits the journalists work when that person is not in the office. The big question is, would that cause the divorcing if those writings are against the line of the workplace? Those are difficult questions, and there would not be right answers for this kind of things.
Picture I
