Decision on the Appeal of Slobodna Crna Gora vs. Portal CdM

The Complaints Commission therefore did not establish a violation of the Code of Journalists of Montenegro.

Appreciating the fact that the contested text was published in the form of a column, i.e. an author's comment, and bearing in mind that the purpose of this journalistic form is precisely to express personal views, value judgments and critical assessments on issues of public interest, the Commission assessed the content of the column within the limits of freedom of comment, which are necessarily wider than those valid for factual reporting. That freedom includes harsh, polemical and provocative criticism, but does not protect expression that turns into hate speech, discrimination or incitement to hostility or violence.

Applying the stated standard to the content of the disputed column, viewed as a whole and in the context in which it was published, the Commission determined that this limit was not crossed. The contested allegations do not constitute hate speech in the sense of guideline 4.1 of the Code, nor do they contain an invitation, incitement or justification of hatred, hostility, discrimination or violence towards Orthodox believers or members of any other religious community.

The Commission also found that the author acted in good faith within the meaning of guideline 4.3 of the Code. The subject of the column is not Christianity or Orthodox believers as a religious community, but a critique of what the author considers to be the distortion of Christ's teaching through a nationalist and traditionalist interpretation of religion. Such, even a harsh and polemical value judgement, remains within the limits of protected commentary.

Explanation

Media Council for Self-Regulation received on 11 August, 2026, a complaint from the political party “Slobodna Crna Gora“ regarding Andrej Nikolaidis column published on the CdM portal. The applicant believes that the column as a whole represents "a continuation of vulgar expression and an open attack on the religious feelings of Orthodox Christian believers, and the desecration of religious sanctuaries." They quote three wordings as disputed:

"God himself cared so much about family, conservative values ​​that he made a child with a married woman. There you go, you do the same..."

"Jesus did not give a f... for this world, including the nation, the state and family"

"Nationalist Christianity is not possible, except as an abomination, therefore a hideous desecration"

The complaint also claims that the editorial office failed to act with due diligence. This, in the opinion of Slobodna Crna Gora, enabled the publication of a text that goes beyond the limits of permissible political and social criticism and enters the domain of unjustified insulting of believers and religious dignitaries.

The Media Council requested a statement from the editorial office. Aleksandra Obradović, deputy editor-in-chief of the CdM portal, answered. She first indicates that the column was published on August 10, not August 8 as stated in the complaint.

We consider it important to emphasize that this is an author's column in which the author presents his views, observations and comments on social and political topics. As such, the column represents an author's expression and cannot be viewed in the same way as an informative text whose purpose is primarily to present facts," was written in the statement signed by Obradović.

She further points out that Portal CdM does not see elements in this column of their colleague Andrej Nikolaidis, a "multiple-awarded writer and winner of the Thirteenth of July Award given by the state of Montenegro", that would constitute a basis for a complaint.

"The author's freedom of expression represents one of the basic values ​​of media activity, and it is precisely the characteristic of the columnist format that the author presents his own views and interpretations," she wrote in the answer.

She points out that additionally, at the end of the column on the CdM portal, it is clearly indicated that it is the opinion of the author, which clearly indicates to the readers the nature and character of the published content.

"In this sense, we believe that the complaint in question cannot be a basis for limiting or calling into question the right of the author to express his opinion, nor the editorial freedom to publish such author's content. At the same time, bearing in mind the public statements of the President of Slobodna Crna Gora about the possible initiation of court proceedings against the media that announce that Pavle Đurišić is a war criminal, we perceive the complaint in question in the broader context of pressure on the media and attempts to influence their reporting and editorial policy," wrote Obradović.

In the end, she concluded that CdM remains committed to freedom of expression, professional journalism and the right of authors to express their views, including views that may be the subject of public controversy or disagreement.

The commission considered the allegations from the complaint, the editorial's response and the entire text of the column. The Commission did not evaluate the three wordings from the complaint separately, but in the context of the text in which they were used.

Among the basic principles, the Code prescribes the journalist's duty to defend the right to free comment and criticism. Guideline 2.1 states that "comments and opinions must be freely expressed", with the obligation to "take into account different media formats and styles". The column is an author's genre on the border between journalism and literature. Its purpose is to present a personal position, polemic and, as a rule, provocation. That is why it enjoys a wider freedom of expression than an informative text, both in the choice of topic and in the choice of language. At the end of the controversial column, there is an indication that "the opinions and views of the columnist are not necessarily the views of the editorial staff of CdM". Readers, therefore, could not get the impression that established facts were communicated through it.

The wider freedom of the columnist genre, however, is not unlimited. Guideline 4.3 stipulates that the media "must act in good faith, even when expressing harsh criticism or reporting on events or topics that polarize society." The same guideline allows for "a certain degree of exaggeration", but prohibits the use of derogatory terms with the sole intention of damaging someone's reputation. Vulgarity that is an end in itself, or that would be aimed at inciting hostility towards believers, could therefore be subject to a different assessment.

The Commission assesses that this limit was not crossed in this case and that the author acted in good faith. The column does not disparage Christianity, nor the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, the author presents Jesus as "the negation of petty-bourgeois false morality, the negation of everything ossified and hypocritical" and assesses that "denying Jesus means denying the best in human history." The subject of criticism is not religion, but what the author considers its distortion: the interpretation of Christianity in the service of nationalism and conservatism. The immediate reason for the column is Methodius, whose public glorification of a character who, according to the author, was a "people's champion", the author contrasts with Christ's teachings. The column nowhere mentions Orthodoxy or Orthodox believers, but talks about Christianity as a whole. The applicant's thesis that it is an attack on Orthodox believers is therefore not supported in the text.

The wording about a "married woman" in the complaint was conveyed incompletely. It is part of a paragraph that begins with the statement that the Church talks about "so-called family values", but that "this is not what is written in the book they supposedly preach". The author then points out that the family of Jesus, in which the father raised the child as his own, does not correspond to the image to which such values ​​refer. The address in the column continues with the call "do the same, raise other people's children", omitted from the complaint. It is aimed at those who preach "family values", not at believers. It is a rough, deliberately provocative expression, but in function of the thesis of the text, and not with the sole intention of harming someone.

The sentence "Jesus did not give a f... for this world" is vulgarly worded, but it expresses the thesis that the author argues later with a quote from the Gospel of Luke (14, 25-33) and the epistles of St. Paul. The third formulation, about nationalist Christianity as an "abomination", is not an insult to believers. It expresses the author's thesis that combining Christianity with nationalism is the desecration of Christianity itself, because Jesus, according to the author, "abolishes every national, gender and class identity". The Commission does not assess the theological foundation of that position, but only that it is a legitimate position in a public controversy.

The Commission, reading the column as a whole, considered the passages that the applicant does not mention, which contain harsh generalizations about the clergy. These are: the claim that Jesus "metaphorically and perhaps physically kicked the clergy of his people" and the sentence "Jesus did not give a f... for ethnic - just like the priests did not for Jesus". The Commission assesses that this is a hyperbole, which refers to Jesus' conflict with the clergy of his time and to the author's criticism of contemporary clergy. Those formulations are not a call to violence against any person, nor an incitement of hostility towards believers. However, the Commission notes that they are at the very limit of acceptable exaggeration from guideline 4.3

Guideline 4.1 of the Code of Ethics of Montenegrin Journalists prescribes:

"The media must not publish content which purpose is to incite hostility or hatred towards persons based on their race, ethnic origin, nationality, age, place of origin, religion (...). The same applies to the publication of content that directly or indirectly promotes said hostility and hatred, as well as any content that aims to create a climate of intolerance and discrimination in a society (...)."

The Commission states that the column does not contain a call to discrimination, violence or hostility, nor does it contain derogatory qualifications aimed at the religious community. Nor can it be considered content that directly or indirectly promotes hatred or aims to create a climate of intolerance. The claim that the column offends religious sentiments and desecrates religious shrines is therefore not founded.

At the same time, the Commission notes that the indication that it is the author's opinion does not absolve the editor from responsibility for the published content. Guideline 1.1 expressly prescribes due diligence as an editor's obligation. The editors are obliged to look at the author's texts in the light of the Code. It was expected that the editor's statement would respond to the essence of the allegations in the complaint, and not limit itself to the statement that it was a column.

Regarding the context indicated by the editorial, the Commission does not assess the motives of the complainants. Everyone has the right to appeal to the Media Council. However, the commission notes that the appeal takes the contested wording out of context and shortens it in a way that changes its meaning. The column thus ascribes a meaning contrary to that which emerges from the text as a whole.

Commission for Monitoring and Complaints

Aneta Spaić

Sonja Drobac

Danilo Burzan

Branko Vojičić

Ranko Vujović