SRF loses a defamation case

Daily Life, Swiss News and General Topics
1

Back on Feb 2022, SRF published this paragraph on this article about a crypto guy:

According to a reliable source, several incoming and outgoing transactions at Dadvan Yousuf raise questions. It shows “SRF Investigativ” transactions by Dadvan Yousuf to crypto addresses that are on blacklists and that are warned about on crypto platforms. The warnings that “SRF Investigativ” has received speak of fraudsters, terrorist financing and connections to Russia and Ukraine, for example. Such transactions are suspicious, according to the source.

Terrorism financing, quite heavy words. Ideally, the reliable source is a prosecutor, an INTERPOL Red Notice, or a court ruling. Then, it’s really easy to put terrorism financing next to a name, click send to editor and apero time!

But…ideal things rarely happen. The journalists had no prosecutor or judge as source, only an anonymous and protected source. The guy called terrorist financier started a defamation case that had some hiccups along the way. A judge ruled today against SRF journalists because the proof of “terrorism financing” was never shown to the judge.

I’d love to share an SRF article about the court ruling, but it doesn’t exist…go figure why. So, 2nd best: 20 min article.

What SRF published today is this. Sounds reasonable, but why publish something if it cannot be defended? Or was it just because they bet on the guy not fighting back?

SRF supports the reporting and takes note of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings with a penal order. In defamation proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the media professionals. This is sometimes in conflict with the protection of sources. In the present case, SRF cannot bring any further information into the proceedings without endangering the source. For this reason, no objection is being made. SRF protects informants and does not disclose sources of confidential information to criminal authorities (police, public prosecutor’s office, courts, etc.) (SRF journalistic guidelines 9.10). The journalists carefully and thoroughly checked their information in accordance with the requirements of SRF’s journalistic guidelines and the rules of the journalistic craft. For media ethics reasons, SRF was not prepared to disclose further information that would have jeopardized the protection of sources.

In any case, the average crypto guy has some history with the law. In this case it’s a cease & desist letter from FINMA to stop an ICO a couple years ago. But, one thing is doing securities trading without having a license under the Swiss financial market law, and a whole different thing is terrorism financing. Hopefully, journalists can tell the difference between securities fraud and terrorism financing, and also tell the difference between prosecutor and journalist jobs.

PS. in case you wonder, fines, compensation and legal costs will be paid by SRF, so make sure to pay SERAFE on time, they need it!

1 Like
2

I can’t wait until the vote to reduce the TV licence.

1 Like
3

As I understand it, the reason why SRF doesn’t take it further or couldn’t defend some parts is because they would have to reveal the source to do that. And ‘SRF investigative’ has to be reliable in that respect or they will not be able to gather information.

It is very possible that had they revealed their source they would have been aquitted, according to Artikel 173, Absatz 2 StGB:
“Be­weist der Be­schul­dig­te, dass die von ihm vor­ge­brach­te oder wei­ter­ver­brei­te­te Äus­se­rung der Wahr­heit ent­spricht, oder dass er ernst­haf­te Grün­de hat­te, sie in gu­ten Treu­en für wahr zu hal­ten, so ist er nicht straf­bar.”
(If the accused proves that the statement he has made or disseminated is true or that he had serious grounds for believing it to be true in good faith, he is not liable to prosecution.)

What 20Minutes didn’t write was that this is the first time ever for SRF to be sentenced. And - don’t know if they mentioned that - SRF pays the fines because they still stand behind the Journalists and the report. I’m sure SRF bosses know who the source and the information was which can’t be revealed.

The judge did their job and did it well on the basis of information that they had to decide on.
SRF weighs pledges given to sources higher than financial fines and a dent in reputation.

I personally don’t mind the costs are paid by the employer SRF.
The personal fines each journalist got are conditionally, which means they only have to pay them should they be sentenced again within a set probational period.

1 Like
4

It seems the SRF attempt to ride the proverbial high horse by supporting their journalist ended up in falling from said horse.

Another complaint for defamation has been made:

It’s about the statement on the penal orders

Now Yousuf has filed another criminal complaint for “defamation”. It is directed against unknown employees of Swiss Radio and Television (SRF). The subject of the complaint is a press release in which the SRF supported the convicted journalists. It states, among other things, that the SRF is waiving objections to the penal orders in order to protect its own source. In the statement, SRF also linked to the report that led to the conviction for defamation. It can still be viewed on the SRF website.

In the complaint, Yousuf’s lawyer describes the SRF statement as “misleading” and presents the argument about protecting sources as a pretext. During the course of the proceedings, the journalists refused to submit “even a copy” of the document on which they based their reporting. And this despite the fact that it is not clear why this would have violated source protection.

Now, we’ll learn the name of the brilliant person who decided to publish this anonymously the very day the defamation case was lost.

SRF stands behind the reporting and acknowledges the conclusion of the criminal proceedings with a penal order. In defamation proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the media professionals. This is sometimes in conflict with the protection of sources. In the present case, SRF cannot bring any further information into the proceedings without endangering the source. For this reason, no objection is made. SRF protects informants and does not reveal sources of confidential information, even to criminal authorities (police, public prosecutors, courts, etc.) (SRF journalistic guidelines 9.10). The journalists checked their information carefully and thoroughly in accordance with the requirements of SRF’s journalistic guidelines and the rules of the journalistic craft. For media ethics reasons, SRF was not prepared to reveal any further information that would have jeopardized the protection of sources.

The implication here is that the published information is true, but it cannot be
proven as true to the court because reasons. The dog ate my homework or something like that.

So, this is a lesson for us all. There is something that shall not be said after losing a defamation case: IT’S TRUE BUT I CANNOT PROVE IT BECAUSE I’M HONORABLE…it may be breaking the law one more time.

5

I don’t know what you want to say with your long post?

Even your link says what we already knew: (run through deepl)
“…The Zurich-Limmat public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings on May 9, 2023. The public prosecutor’s office came to the clear conclusion that there was no violation of the law by the SRF journalists. The private plaintiff lodged an appeal against this. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich subsequently assessed the facts of the case differently to the public prosecutor’s office and sent the proceedings back to the latter on the grounds that the journalists had not succeeded in proving their exoneration.”
Dadvan Yousuf took SRF to court and did not succeed. As he was not happy with that he raised an objection. The second time there was a verdict against SRF. SRF said they will not raise objection in order not to reveal their source. They therefore accepted the verdict.

Nothing fishy.

6

Well, that’s exactly the issue.

SRF publishing about accepting the verdict, but supporting the report of unconfirmed information is not exactly accepting the verdict.

7

SRF did not say they are sure would they reveal the source they would win in court.
We will have to agree to disagree.

1 Like
8

It’s only my opinion, don’t worry. What matters is the conclusion of the judge.

Anyway, losing 2 defamation cases in a row for the very same article would be a world first.

9

I’m not worried.

But I have to ask, what TWO defamation cases?
Dadvan Yousuf took SRF to court. The case was dismissed.
Then Dadvan Yousuf took it higher up and it was accepted and ruled.
They lost one. The first ever. Which is pretty good for a news-outlet.