[ad_1]
In a groundbreaking ruling, the Zug Cantonal Court prohibited journalist Michèle Binswanger from spreading speculation about the events of the Zug Landammann celebration in 2014.
The verdict had been eagerly awaited for about four months. In essence, it is about the question: Can the journalist Michèle Binswanger repeat the events of the celebration of Zug Landammann in 2014? And if so: What speculations about the behavior of the then Green Cantonal Councilor Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin and the then SVP Cantonal Councilor Markus Hürlimann can spread?
Michèle Binswanger on Instagram. (2019)
In a so-called super-provisional ruling, a single judge had banned the publication of such content as a precautionary measure to protect Spiess-Hegglin’s personal rights. Binswanger had filed a complaint against him. Could you show that there was an overriding public interest in reopening history and expanding private and intimate affairs? How far does freedom of the press go? And where do you put the limits of privacy protection?
Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin.
Now the cantonal court of Zug has published its ruling. He has completely rejected the justifications put forward by Binswanger for the publication he was planning. According to the court, there is no public interest in the specific events at the Zug Landammannfeier. Nor could a free pass be obtained to report the fact that Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin made repeated comments on his case after the Landammann celebration, especially as he did so to defend his personal rights. Even Binswanger’s objection that such a ban was censorship and a partial professional ban was not followed by the Zug Cantonal Court.
According to the court, it was “credibly established that Spiess-Hegglin fears an unjustified and potentially particularly serious violation of her personal rights and that this threat of violation threatens her with a disadvantage that is not easily recoverable.” Once published, a book or article cannot simply be withdrawn.
Criminal complaint to the Basel prosecutor’s office
However, the publication ban imposed four months ago remains in effect. In addition, the court prohibits spreading the complaint that Spiess-Hegglin accused the then cantonal councilor Markus Hürlimann of rape. Spiess-Hegglin filed a criminal complaint with the Basel prosecutor due to a corresponding text on the Twitter short message service.
If Binswanger violates these orders, he can be fined. In addition, it must bear the legal costs of 10,000 francs and Spiess-Hegglin around 16,000 francs for the legal costs.
Spiess-Hegglin says about the outcome of the legal proceedings:
“Defending my rights in this matter has absorbed me enormously in recent months. Now I feel relieved and can finally get back to the important stuff. ”
In the association “#NetzCourage”, which campaigns against hate on social networks, several important projects are pending, “with which we will do very good to society in the long term”, adds the native of Zug: “I am happy with this clear decision. You have to leave me alone now. And I can look forward.
Binswanger, who has called herself “Joan of Arc of press freedom” on the Twitter short message service since the first instance ruling, can refer the decision to the Zug High Court. When asked, she said it was clear that she would challenge the verdict. She still couldn’t comment on the content.
