OPEN LETTER REGARDING DIRECTOR CZECHOWSKI’S UNLAWFUL ATTEMPT TO BLOCK MY WEBSITE

Katowice, 7 December 2025

Grzegorz Kempinsky

Mr Robert Czechowski

Director of the Lubuski Theatre in Zielona Góra

              Dear Director,

On 5 December 2025, my website operatorwww.kempinsky.plinformed me of a letter sent by the Lubuski Theatre in Zielona Góra, containing a request to block my website.

As this behaviour bears all the hallmarks of an attempt to silence criticism by unlawfully exerting pressure on third parties – bypassing the author of the text – which, in a democratic state, is tantamount to censorship, and which in the personal sphere may be perceived as a form of intimidation, gagging, and an attempt to use institutional resources against a defenceless citizen, and in the public sphere is tantamount to censorship and an attempt to undermine freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, I have decided to address my letter to you in the form of an open letter, in order to avoid any further behind-the-scenes manoeuvres orchestrated by you to force me into silence, further unlawful actions of a secretive, behind-the-scenes nature, or to sweep the whole matter under the carpet.

In my view, your actions constitute an unlawful attempt to restrict freedom of speech, which is contrary to a number of legal acts, including:

• Article 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (freedom of expression),

• Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (freedom of the press and other media),

• Article 1(1) and Article 3 of the Press Law (prohibition of preventive censorship),

• Article 24 of the Civil Code (measures to protect personal rights – whereby their application requires proof of an infringement, rather than a demand for a block without legal grounds), Article 212(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 213(1) of the Criminal Code (permissible criticism and exemptions from criminal liability in the case of acting in the public interest).

In this regard, I am addressing the following questions and clarifications to you:

               1. Request to block a website – lack of legal basis

The director of a public cultural institution has no statutory authority whatsoever to demand that third parties (e.g. website operators) block content with which he or she disagrees.

Such authority:

• · does not derive from the Constitution,
• · does not derive from the Act on the Organisation and Conduct of Cultural Activities,
• · does not derive from the Civil Code,
• · does not derive from the Press Law.

The only procedure provided for by law is to contact the author of the content directly with a request for a correction (Articles 31–33 of the Press Law) or to bring a civil action for infringement of personal rights (Article 24 of the Civil Code).

A letter sent behind my back to my hosting provider circumvents these mechanisms and meets the definition of prior censorship, which is prohibited by Article 54(2) of the Polish Constitution and Article 1(2) of the Press Law.

I therefore request a clear answer:

On what legal basis did you request the blocking of my website?

Do you perhaps hold a final court judgement ordering the closure of the website? Was such a hearing held in secret and at lightning speed, without my participation? (I would like to remind you that the letter refers specifically to the article entitled‘Will Czechowski Go to Prison?’ https://kempinsky.pl/czechowski-pojdzie-siedziec/, published on my blog on 4 December 2025, i.e. the day before your letter demanding the blocking of my website)

This is not a rhetorical question. Your letter addressed to my website’s operator does not contain any provision, article, paragraph or any indication whatsoever that would entitle you – the director of a public cultural institution – to demand the silencing of an independent critical voice.

If there is a court order mandating the blocking of the site, please send it to both me and my internet service provider.

               2. Facts vs opinions – applicable legal standards

              · Opinions

The letter sent states that the content of the article infringes upon the personal rights of the theatre or its director. On this matter, the regulations are absolutely clear:

Opinions and reviews (including harsh ones) – are protected on the basis of:

• Article 54 of the Constitution,

• Article 41 of the Press Law,

• Section 213(1) of the Criminal Code (exemption from criminal liability if the allegation serves the public interest or is justified),

• established case law of the Supreme Court: “Even harsh criticism is permissible, provided it serves the public interest.”

Therefore, statements to which you refer, such as: “individuals [...] commonly referred to as ruthless careerists, whose only competence lies in kissing up to those in power”

– are evaluative in nature, not factual. And such evaluations are protected by law as critical opinion.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the language of metaphor and hyperbole is permissible in public debate, particularly in relation to persons holding public office (including Supreme Court judgment I CSK 232/17).

Importantly, the term ‘four letters’ is not considered vulgar in the light of linguistics or case law.

· Facts

My text refers exclusively to public data, including:

• · The content of the Labour Court’s judgement, which is devastating for you,

• · the results of the institutional audit, which were disastrous for you,

• · the press reports cited.

Pursuant to Article 213(1) of the Criminal Code, the reporting of true factscan never constitute the offenceof defamationif it serves the public interest.

The activities of the director of a publicly funded institution undoubtedly serve such an interest.

I therefore ask you to specify: Which fact cited in my article is – in your opinion – untrue, and what evidence supports this?

              3. “Infringement of the institution’s personal rights” – a baseless allegation

Your complaint suggests that the personal rights of the Lubuski Theatre have been infringed.

I would therefore like to draw your attention to the following provisions:

• Article 23 of the Civil Code – list of personal rights,
• Article 24 of the Civil Code – grounds for infringement,
• established case law, according to which an institution may seek protection only where it is the subject of criticism.

Whereas in my text:

• · the institution is not assessed at all,

• · no reference is made to the theatre’s activities,

• · the entire content concerns you in your capacity as a public figure.

Therefore, the allegation of infringement of the institution’s personal rights:

• is not supported by the content of the article,

• may indicate the manipulative involvement of the institution in a dispute concerning you personally,

• may breach the principles of public asset management – Article 44(3)(1) of the Public Finance Act (uneconomical/inefficient action).

I therefore request a response: In which part of the article were the personal rights of the Lubuski Theatre infringed?

              4. Legal consequences of actions of a censorial nature

Your letter addressed to the website operator – without any legal basis – may be classified as:

• an attempt to circumvent the provisions on freedom of speech (Article 54 of the Constitution),

• preventive censorship, prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Press Law,

• action taken by a public official without a legal basis, which violates Article 7 of the Polish Constitution (the principle of legality),

• abuse of power by a person in charge of a public institution,

• the exertion of unlawful pressure on an independent media organisation, which violates standards of press freedom.

In summary: it is hard not to get the impression that you are not attempting to challenge the content, but rather to eliminate its very existence, which is closer to the logic of Stalinist censorship than to dialogue and respect for the democratic constitutional order and the law in force.

In a democratic state, every director, president, mayor, minister – every citizen holding public office – is subject to criticism, and any attempt to stifle critical voices through behind-the-scenes, unlawful or forceful methods constitutes not only an abuse of power but also a real threat to the quality of public life.

Such actions lead to:

• the erosion of public trust,

• the subordination of public debate to the interests of individuals,

• the creation of a climate of fear,

• the creation of backroom cliques, cronyism and nepotism,

• and above all – to the return of practices that Poles know all too well from the days when gagging, lies, manipulation and beatings for holding views other than the only correct ones were tools of the system.

I would like to believe, however, that in this case we are dealing merely with a misunderstanding, overzealousness, or a momentary lapse of judgement, rather than a deliberate attempt to effectively introduce preventive censorship through the forceful use of the public theatre institution. Nevertheless, it is you – not I – who have created a situation in which such a question must be asked.

               5. Conclusions and further action

In view of the above, I reiterate the following questions:

a. on what legal basis did you request the blocking of the website,

b. which sections infringe upon the institution’s personal rights,

c. do you consider these actions to be consistent with the principles of democracy?

I request a written response, which should be unambiguous and based on specific legal provisions, rather than generalities or your personal impressions.

Dear Director,

I regret to inform you that the fact of sending a an UNLAWFUL DEMAND TO BLOCK MY WEBSITE, is, in my view, an attempt to silence my critical voice regarding a public official, and I perceive this as an attempt to intimidate both myself and the operator of my websitewww.kempinsky.pl

As this matter is of the utmost importance and sets a precedent regarding public life in our country, I am addressing this letter both directly to you personally and to:

• · The President of the Republic of Poland

• · the Prime Minister

• · The organiser of the Lubuski Theatre in Zielona Góra

• · the Sejm Committee on Culture

• · the theatre’s trade unions,

• · my internet service provider

Given that, in my view, you are also attempting to use the power of a large institution against a defenceless citizen who does not have the full weight of the institutional machinery behind them, I also intend to request assistance, protection and intervention from:

• · ZASP, of which I am a member

• · the OPZZ trade union, of which I am a member,

• · the Association of Polish Directors, of which I am a member and co-founder.

As, in my opinion, we are dealing with an unprecedented and unparalleled violent attempt at behind-the-scenes manoeuvring aimed at silencing critical voices in the public sphere – also given the impact of such actions on the work of journalists, critics and other commentators on cultural life in Poland – I also intend to make this letter available to the media in the form of an open letter

Given the nature of the matter – which I regard as a precedent-setting case concerning the fundamental principles of public life, social coexistence, freedom of speech and democracy – the letter will also be published on:

• · my websitewww.kempinsky.pl(yes, the very one you are trying to silence)

• · and forwarded to news agencies and editorial offices.

Yours sincerely,

Grzegorz Kempinsky

d/w

· President of the Republic of Poland

· Prime Minister

· Organiser

· My internet service provider

· ZASP

· Trade unions at my workplace

· OPZZ trade unions of which I am a member

· Association of Polish Film Directors

· Media