Conviction for defamation in public criticism of a person in a political context

Facts

The complainant, president of the FDP, published an open letter together with other party executives, in which the defendant, who had lodged an objection to a partial zoning plan change, was portrayed as reckless and self-serving. The letter was published in a local newspaper and brought to the attention of the defendant and a third party. The complainant was convicted of defamation by the cantonal court and appealed.

The lower court found that the complainant had written and published the letter and was therefore criminally responsible. The complainant argued that the statements in the open letter did not constitute a violation of honor and that he had assumed in good faith that the statements were true.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined whether the statements in the open letter fulfilled the elements of defamation. It found that the statements had attacked the defendant's personal honor and that the complainant must have been aware of the defamatory nature of the passages in question in the open letter.

The court also rejected the complainant's argument that the statements had been made in a political context and were therefore protected by freedom of expression. It found that the statements had gone beyond objective criticism and had presented the defendant in a false light.

T…