Greek authorities acquitted Nikolas Voulelis, the chief editor of the newspaper "Efimerida ton Syntakton" and reporter Dimitris Psarras on Tuesday of all charges relating to a defamation and violation of privacy suit that was brought against them by Golden Dawn MP, and party spokesman, Elias Kassidiaris.
It should be reminded that Kassidiaris is currently in jail waiting trial on charges that his party allegedly operated as a criminal organisation.
The law suit concerns an article and video published by the controversial newspaper last December, in which Kassidiaris is shown acting the part of a police sergeant overlooking the beating of a prisoner by two supposed "police men".
According to the state news agency, the public prosecutor in the case had earlier recommended a guilty charge for the two reporters, on the grounds that the expressions used in their criticism of the MP indicated contempt and exceeded the boundaries of proper conduct expected by journalists in the exercise of free speech, while the video was essentially play-acting and therefore a private moment that could be considered a part of a personal archive.
Nonetheless, the court judged that the article was not defamatory but "stern criticism" of a public figure and member of Parliament, whose purpose was not to vilify but to inform.
At the same time, the court also concluded that the video did not meet the criteria to be considered part of an archive so the two journalists had not committed a violation of privacy.
It should be reminded that Kassidiaris is currently in jail waiting trial on charges that his party allegedly operated as a criminal organisation.
The law suit concerns an article and video published by the controversial newspaper last December, in which Kassidiaris is shown acting the part of a police sergeant overlooking the beating of a prisoner by two supposed "police men".
According to the state news agency, the public prosecutor in the case had earlier recommended a guilty charge for the two reporters, on the grounds that the expressions used in their criticism of the MP indicated contempt and exceeded the boundaries of proper conduct expected by journalists in the exercise of free speech, while the video was essentially play-acting and therefore a private moment that could be considered a part of a personal archive.
Nonetheless, the court judged that the article was not defamatory but "stern criticism" of a public figure and member of Parliament, whose purpose was not to vilify but to inform.
At the same time, the court also concluded that the video did not meet the criteria to be considered part of an archive so the two journalists had not committed a violation of privacy.