Lawyer: Why is the journalist accused of treason, not the person he quoted?

Lawyer Anton Fil. Photo: UOJ

Anton Fil, the lawyer representing UOJ journalist Valeriy Stupnytsky, pointed out the absurdity of the accusations against Stupnytsky and his colleagues in a comment posted on the UOJ YouTube channel. Fil emphasized that all charges against Stupnitsky and other UOJ journalists are based on an attempt to interpret routine news publications by UOJ as "criminal". The prosecution qualifies their actions under Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, "Treason", which involves a potential life sentence.

At the same time, the lawyer noted that every one of the dozens of UOJ publications cited in the indictment as evidence of a crime includes a reference to the original source, with the words being transmitted by the UOJ without alteration.

As an example, Anton Fil mentioned the publication titled "Head of RMA: Give Us the Lavra, We’ll Find a Way to Expel the UOC," based on calls by Ternopil Regional Administration Head Mykhailo Holovko to expel the UOC from the Pochayiv Lavra.

The lawyer expressed bewilderment – if prosecutors see a crime in this publication, why are the journalists who simply quoted Holovko being tried and not Holovko himself? Why are the employees of the channel OTB Halychyna, which interviewed the Ternopil Regional Administration Head, not being arrested? Why are employees of the many other media outlets that reposted Holovko’s statement not being prosecuted?

"It’s hard to discuss this without emotion," the lawyer said. "It looks strange when the source that voiced certain information and the journalist who simply quoted it are treated differently. The journalist who merely cited the source is in pretrial detention, while the source still holds his position, and there are no claims against it whatsoever."

Earlier, the UOJ reported that, according to the lawyer, the "UOJ case" is political persecution.

Lexo gjithashtu