At the heart of the dispute was expressing which type of value judgment is considered illegal. The Supreme Court Civil Review Chamber determined that simply claiming one person is working against another is so vague linguistically that it cannot be treated as a factual claim. It is something that cannot be proven to be factually true or false and can only be considered inappropriate or not.

The chamber added that irrespective of whether the claim is treated as an incorrect fact or value judgment, its publication was not grounds for damages.

The Supreme Court clarified that not every value judgment is illegal upon being expressed, and not every negative social media comment need be followed by court-mandated damages.

The court stated that a claim published on social media is illegal primarily if it is degrading, shaming or ridiculing in nature. The claim made on social media that an official is working against the minister does not infringe upon the official's honor to an extent that it should be considered as more than insignificantly defaming their honor.

Furthermore, the civil chamber clarified that publishing data means making it known to third parties. The chamber emphasized that merely expressing approval of another person's comment on social media cannot be interpreted as publishing claims.

In the case in question, Viive Aasma sued Rein Jõe and demanded compensation for non-material damage after the latter commented on the conditions of Aasma leaving office on Facebook, suggesting she had worked against the minister as an adviser.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!