Who is Responsible When There is No Authority: The Case of the Disclosure of a Student's Intimate Photographs on TV Informer

“I chose nice pictures; you have many not-so-nice and explicit pictures,” said the editor-in-chief of TV Informer, Dragan J. Vučićević, on August 20 of this year, while showing intimate photographs of Nikolina Sinđelić on his phone during the program “Kolegijum 2”.

Just a few days earlier, Nikolina, a student and activist, publicly testified about police torture and sexual abuse she experienced at the hands of the JZO commander. In the days that followed, her intimate photographs, which she stated were taken when she was a minor, were published on social media without her consent.

Alongside these photographs, a campaign against her was simultaneously taking place in media outlets close to the authorities. Danica Đokić, a journalist at Cenzolovka, stated for ZOOMER that in this case, “female sexuality and intimacy were exploited to confront the activist and discredit her views and actions.”

“The law prohibits the display of pornography, scenes of brutal violence, and other content that can severely harm the development of minors, and broadcasting such content is treated as a ‘serious violation of the law.’” Danica Đokić for ZOOMER

The public, civil sector, independent media, and media associations condemned the display of Nikolina’s photographs on TV Informer. 

The Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM) stated in its statement that it strongly condemns the case on TV Informer and pointed out that “the public display of intimate photographs without the consent of the individual is prohibited by Articles 144, 145, and 185 of the Criminal Code.”

ANEM also drew attention to the fact that Informer violated several provisions of the Code of Journalists of Serbia relating to “privacy, dignity, malicious damage to the reputation of individuals, and the use of honorable means.”

REM COUNCIL

Under normal circumstances, REM would be the body expected to react in cases where media violates the law. However, there has been a prolonged stagnation in its operation.

“In theory, REM exists today as an institution, but without the REM Council, the body within the Regulator that makes decisions and holds the majority of competencies in its work – practically, it does not exist,” explains Danica Đokić. 

Since November 4, 2024, when the mandate of the previous REM Council expired, a new one has not been elected. 

During this timeframe, the process for electing a new council has been initiated twice, the second time following a two-week student blockade of RTS in April. The only demand of that blockade was to call new elections for the REM Council. 

Only on October 22, as reported by the Nova portal, was a final list of 18 candidates for the members of the REM Council prepared, from which 9 are to be elected. However, given the claims from Civil Initiatives regarding violations of the law during the election process, it remains uncertain how this process will proceed and whether a new council will even be formed.

Rade Đurić, a lawyer from the Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia, told ZOOMER that REM should not be given up on and that the REM Council will eventually be formed. “This does not mean that cases for which there is knowledge and for which a report has been filed in the meantime will not be addressed; on the contrary, they must be addressed.”

He also stated that the Professional Service is preparing cases that the future REM Council should decide on whenever the new council is formed.

As noted by ANEM, the Monitoring and Analysis Service of REM stated on October 7 in the conclusion of its report, following a report from the organization CRTA, that in the program “Kolegijum 2,” aired on August 20 on TV Informer, four articles of the Regulations on the Protection of Human Rights in the Provision of Media Services were violated in connection with Article 61 of the Law on Electronic Media.

Regarding comments on the alleged “OnlyFans” profile, the Service concluded that Informer acted contrary to Article 20 of the Regulations on the Protection of Human Rights in the Provision of Media Services, which relates to respect for personal dignity. Furthermore, they state that by distributing the photographs, the right to respect for the individual whose photograph was published was also violated.

Although the Professional Service made an assessment, this institution will not be able to make decisions on it until a new council is established.

IS REM THE ONLY BODY THAT CAN REACT?

Although nearly every REM Council so far has been criticized for mild or nonexistent sanctions against the media, the existence of the institution ensured a body from which accountability for (non)action was expected. In the absence of a body that, at least in principle, oversees the work of electronic media, it remains unclear who can and must react ex officio if a television station violates the law.

Lawyer Kruna Savović told ZOOMER that in the specific case of TV Informer and the publication of photographs of Nikolina Sinđelić, besides REM, “the expected reactions are from two bodies that deal with privacy protection: the reaction of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection and the reaction of the relevant ministry.”

Savović adds that considering the report from the Monitoring Service, “the Commissioner could have initiated oversight based on that report and even initiated proceedings for imposing sanctions against the publisher of Informer and its responsible person.” 

“Certainly, the Commissioner could have reacted immediately upon the publication of the photographs, considering that this is an obvious abuse of private photographs for the purpose of discrediting an individual.” Kruna Savović, lawyer

In response to questions from the ZOOMER portal, the office of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, citing Article 88 of the Law on Personal Data Protection, stated that the Commissioner “is not authorized to control the processing of personal data performed by media for the purposes of investigative journalism or publication of information in the media; in other words, the provisions of the Law governing the jurisdiction of the Commissioner do not apply to such processing of personal data.”

Indeed, Article 88 states that the processing of personal data carried out for the purposes of journalistic investigation, publication of information in the media, and for scientific, artistic, or literary expression does not apply the provisions of the Law, but only if they are “necessary for the protection of freedom of expression and information.”

Does this mean that there is a public interest in commenting on and sharing “revenge pornography” of a minor?

Kruna Savović, however, states that “since the information presented in this specific case does not aim to inform the public but to degrade the individual, in support of which, in the end, speaks the finding of the REM Professional Service, the article of the law to which the Commissioner referred could not be a basis for his exclusion from proceedings.”

Among the powers of the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications is the initiation of misdemeanor proceedings. However, their jurisdiction in initiating proceedings against electronic media is neither explicitly prescribed nor excluded anywhere.

ANEM stated in the earlier mentioned statement that the Ministry “had to react ex officio based on the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media, as the photographs were not only unlawfully displayed by the individual depicted in them, but were taken when Nikolina was a minor.”

The Ministry has previously initiated misdemeanor proceedings in cases relating to the protection of minors, but those cases concerned online and print media. 

In response to ZOOMER’s questions, the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications referred to Articles 90, 91, and 112 of the Law on Public Information and Media, as well as Article 31 of the Law on Electronic Media. In its response, they stated that REM is an independent body, and that if a person believes that their rights have been violated by the publication of information, they can protect their rights through legal proceedings in accordance with the positive legal regulations of the Republic of Serbia.

PRIVATE LAWSUITS AS THE ONLY SOLUTION

“There are alternative legal remedies, which fortunately function, primarily the protection of personal data, as we often see that personal data is abused. Based on that, criminal charges and civil lawsuits can be filed where affected journalists and activists, for example, or individuals, can claim compensation for non-material damage.” Rade Đurić, lawyer at NUNS

As confirmed to ZOOMER, Nikolina Sinđelić has already filed such lawsuits. Up to this point, they have not received responses to four submitted lawsuits. “We submitted them, and we have no further information. To be honest, it is still early to expect any response,” Nikolina notes. 

“Regarding Informer, we plan to file a criminal complaint, primarily due to the sharing of someone else's photographs without consent. That is punishable because these are intimate photographs and because the person is a minor.” Nikolina Sinđelić for ZOOMER

While institutions remain inactive and while the Council that could oversee gross violations of regulations and laws takes a year to establish, private lawsuits are all that citizens have left.

Source: Zoomer