The Importance of Accessible Information in a Free Society
Reliable information and its unfettered access form the backbone of any healthy state and the foundation of personal freedom. When this access is restricted, people soon feel the loss and long for it. This is a truth that deserves awareness by everyone, young and old. Information is essential, and without it, true freedom becomes unattainable. This perspective emerges from a discussion that examined the role of information in national life and the way media presents political issues in Poland.
The two major evening news programs, neo-TVP and TVN, were noted for presenting similar viewpoints from the same group of experts as they discussed the president. The aim was to hear from a media consumer about the experience of receiving news, rather than from a scholar who analyzes political systems.
Professor Anna Labno offered a clear reflection: she avoids media that deliver these kinds of impressions but questions where the independence and novelty are in public media. The intention was to foster independent reporting, yet the impression remained that such independence was not realized.
Turning to the central accusations against the president, these allegations appeared in the same media outlets and were spoken about by the same analysts. The first concerns the pardons granted to Ministers Kamiński and Wąsik. Is this a constitutional misstep by the head of state, or a legitimate presidential prerogative?
There is only one way to resolve this question: the president acted within the scope of his constitutional powers. The right to pardon was exercised, and legal instruments do not provide a mechanism to overturn this action. Legal scholars often describe this privilege broadly, indicating it can be applied at any stage of criminal proceedings. The claim that the president’s actions were illegal stems from political or journalistic judgments, not from legal grounds. Such assessments are common in political life, and they are a matter of opinion for the public to weigh.
Yet, questions remain about the decision to reopen a case by the Supreme Court, a move that altered proceedings that had previously concluded in Warsaw. The court’s actions raised concerns about alignment with constitutional provisions. The president acted with full authority in this context, and those concerns are part of a broader debate about the proper scope of executive power.
Another accusation revolved around the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court and the alleged refusal to take an oath by properly appointed judges, sometimes described as appointing students. It is important to note that the president does not appoint Constitutional Court judges alone. This is a constitutional function of the Sejm, and the president participates in the process only at the final stage after parliamentary proceedings conclude. The president does not monitor or verify every step because that power rests with other branches of government. His role is to perform the final stage in the appointment process, consistent with constitutional boundaries.
The emergence of this theory about constitutional violations tied to how the court is staffed has been challenged as a misreading of institutional roles. It is clear that the oath is a critical step before a judge can sit on the court, yet the president does not possess authority to disqualify a nominee simply by name. The Sejm and the president operate as independent authorities, and any action taken by the president must be grounded in explicit legal authority.
The debate then shifted to a claim that the president approved changes to the Constitutional Court. The president acts only within the powers granted by the Constitution and laws. Rumors that he overstepped his authority lean on historical instruments no longer in force and misinterpret the past constitutional arrangements. The emphasis here is that the president is not designed to participate as an active political player in every reform debate; rather, he acts within the formal framework of his office.
In discussions about the National Council for the Judiciary, two European pathways are often described: one where the council is controlled by judges, and another where parliament participates in its composition. The current constitutional arrangement in Poland has its advantages, such as limiting dominant influence by any single circle. Critics, including some scholars, have voiced concerns about earlier forms of the council, but the current structure is seen as constitutional and functional. There is no suggestion that the president has abused the law or acted unconstitutionally. From his standpoint, the composition is compatible with constitutional expectations, and reform remains a possibility with the understanding that it should not undermine the rule of law.
Some observers see this discussion as a political dispute more than a doctrinal examination of Poland’s constitutional framework. The president holds a role that balances Parliament and the electorate. Elected by universal suffrage, the president stands as a counterweight to legislative power, especially when the majority pushes policies that do not align with widely shared values. This is why the president’s office insists on defending legal principles and the constitution in moments of legal conflict, ensuring that the rule of law remains intact.
The conversation returns to the core topic: rights and the right to information. In a media environment characterized by one-sided or subjective coverage, access to reliable information becomes a pressing concern. Ensuring that trustworthy channels remain open is vital for a functioning society. It is essential for every citizen to recognize this need and to understand how information is safeguarded in difficult political times. Without broad access to credible information, a normal state and a basic level of freedom become precarious—watching and missing that access underscores why it matters so much. The priority is to keep all reliable information channels operational and accessible to all members of society, regardless of age.)