A prominent figure of the Hungarian democratic opposition, former Member of Parliament and well-known public figure gave an interview to an online public-political channel. He was 80+ years old when the recording was made.

Towards the end of the interview, which was planned and recorded for more than 7 hours, he looked very tired. The reporter, also a well-known activist and journalist, later in the interview asks the interviewee about a controversial piece of writing he had written earlier and his views on it. A quote from 2009, taken out of context, about an eroticised emotional relationship between adult and child, is presented as the author's relativisation of violence and paedophilia against children. In a section of nearly half an hour of the edited oral history interview which is still nearly two hours long, the interviewee utters controversial sentences that could indeed be interpreted as relativising paedophilia. In fact, it could even be seen as an explicit argument for not disclosing paedophile cases and for not taking any institutional action against them. The interviewer interrupts the interviewee several times, so it is possible that at some point he is not phrasing it exactly as he would have wanted. This is so true that he contradicts himself several times, once saying that he might not be right at all.

Immediately after the publication of the interview, which contained some truly controversial sentences, it was all over much of the media that the interviewee was pardoning paedophiles, furthermore the NGO he had founded decades earlier had distanced itself from his ideas.

Questions:

• Did the reporter go far and can we call his attitude as attack journalism based on his own personal conviction?
• Should the guest with an honorable past have had the right to check the interview before publishing or would it be a sort of censorship?
• Was the NGO leadership illoyal to its founder or was it important and necessary to clarify its position in the controversial issues for the broader public?

I was commenting on a live-streamed news debate that was getting heated – two guests were arguing about LGBTQIA+ rights, and one of them said something that felt deeply homophobic. I typed a response into the chat, saying that this kind of rhetoric was dangerous and that the platform shouldn't allow it. Within minutes, several users ganged up on me. I was called brainwashed and even "an enemy of free speech". Comments were personal and aggressive. For the first time, I actually paused the video and looked up the channel's community guidelines. I thought: Surely there's a rule against personal harassment or hate speech? But I couldn't find anything useful. Their 'netiquette' was vague and there was no obvious way to report specific users. Would a visible, accessible complaints pathway – and clearly enforced anti-harassment rules – help users trust platforms to host real dialogue instead of just outrage? Who would you contact in this case?

A leading figure of an opposition party was invited to one of a commercial TV channel's most-watched evening programs to be interviewed about his party's election results. At the beginning of the interview, the politician complained about previous negative coverage by the TV channel whilst he had no chance to elaborate his views personally. The host anchor, on the other hand, had prepared documents in a file about former invitations, but the politician did not want to look into the records saying that he preferred to speak about his program instead. Following this first disagreement, the politician criticised the non-transparent ownership model of the TV channel and its potential links to the government. Among others, he claimed that the owner of the TV channel in question, who is also a prominent leading pastor of a small church, exerts a decisive influence on the editorial practices of the television and eliminates its editorial independence. The style of the debates was tense, however, the language was still controlled by both sides. In the next phase, nevertheless, the reporter counter-attacked the party leader and called his arguments a farce instead of asking questions about the positions of the party. At this peak moment of the interview, the politician stood up and left the studio with anger. The open conflict created intensive waves in the Hungarian public discourse forcing citizens to take sides. 

Dilemma: When a public dialogue turns into confrontation, should ethical communicators prioritize exposing unfairness—or preserving mutual respect and understanding?

I had been involved in climate activism for years. I was ready to join protests and engage in civil disobedience because the scientific facts were clear—things had to change, and political action was not happening fast enough. We had organized several demonstrations, but it was frustrating that the media showed no interest in ordinary protests or the actual content of our campaigns. Each time, they seemed to expect something bigger and more dramatic. They wanted spectacles. 

Lili, a prominent figure in our movement, suggested that we needed to change our strategy: “People don’t change just because we expose the truth. They still believe the system is fundamentally good. If they want a spectacle, we should give them one. Forcing them to pick a side—to confront clear villains and heroes—is what drives real change. That’s why we have to go all in, make it a fight they can’t ignore.”

Lili's strategy meant digging up dirt on the minister blocking climate policy—spreading rumors about his personal life to turn public opinion against him. It meant embracing polarization—not just as a side effect, but as a deliberate tool.

I knew I was at a crossroads. Sticking to verifiable facts would keep the movement respectable but powerless—and the world would burn. Fueling the fire with scandal and outrage, on the other hand, might finally give us the momentum we needed.

Moral Dilemma:

Should we sacrifice ethical communication principles for the sake of political effectiveness? Can the end justify the means if it involves spreading unverified rumors?

Moderator's Question:

Would the principles of communication ethics concerning truth and honesty help in this situation? Under what conditions could these principles guide effective yet ethical activism?

Human rights monitoring organization covering migration and refugee issues is facing a dilemma. Their mission is to bring into public attention human rights violations, yet the public discourse in both Lithuania and Europe has taken on an overwhelmingly negative tone regarding migration. When the migration crisis erupted, public sentiments quickly polarized—ranging from outright hostility toward migrants to calls for extreme measures. NGO which also handles other sensitive topics like disability, women's rights and inequalities, is under constant pressure to maintain a positive public image. This is not only to secure public support but also to ensure continued funding and cooperation with the state institutions. When they try to address sensitive topics—such as the systemic issues migrants face, including discrimination and even sexual violence—the backlash is severe. The NGO risks being accused as anti-state or as engaging in hybrid warfare by highlighting narratives that conflict with the state’s preferred discourse. Yet, the communication abound the critical issues is stifled. The prevailing negative public environment, combined with a tacit expectation to avoid certain ‘taboo’ topics, require the team to adopt a softer, more neutral narrative. This compromises their ability to fully represent the real challenges and human rights violations migrants and other vulnerable groups are facing.  

What kind of wayouts would you see to break through the hostile public narrative and still truthfully communicate about the issues?  

Imagine you work for a local newspaper in a small town. You receive a free article to print, headlined “Vacation in Austria: 5 Must-Visit Destinations for Every Traveler” written by Paula, a PR manager from the Travel Company “Happy Travel”. The article comes at the ideal moment to fill one of the last pages for the upcoming issue. You are pressed for time and only able to skim the article. You don't have time to check the facts during your regular working hours. What would you do?

Paula is in charge of the communication strategy for an NGO that combats climate change. She needs to draft a new plan to raise awareness and reach as many people as possible. She considers social media the most effective channel, as it's where most people get their news. However, she’s concerned about the widespread disinformation on these platforms. Her manager and more experienced colleague, Martine, disagrees, arguing that social media doesn’t allow for the complexity of the issue to be conveyed. She instead suggests a long-form piece in the regional paper, even if it reaches a smaller audience. What would you do if you were Paula?

Some time ago, the Estonian Athletics Association made a statement that one athletics coach had been accused of sexually exploiting his students. The coach was named, his licence was revoked, and many people began to condemn him. However, only one journalist made the effort to ask the coach for his comments. The case has only just come to court, with only one complainant (out of four at the beginning of the scandal). The hearing is closed in order to protect the athlete. I am not claiming that the coach is completely innocent. Besides, nothing has been proven.

This is the third or fourth sexual exploitation scandal to hit the press, where the media amplifies anonymous claims that can only be proven in court. People don't even have any doubts about claims that have not been proven. Even the former president of Estonia spoke out against the coach before the hearing.

Young people argue that sexual exploitation has been a taboo subject in society for so long, which is why these topics need to be discussed in public. However, I would like the professional press to continue reporting the truth. It is also possible to ruin someone's life by accusing them of sexual exploitation.

One method by which companies secure their dominance is through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are unfounded and abusive legal actions that aim to silence those working in the public interest on matters such as fundamental rights, the environment, and public access to information. Typically, such lawsuits are aimed at silencing critics, competitors, and activists who have raised important questions about the company's operations. SLAPPs help companies maintain and strengthen their dominance.These lawsuits affect public debate and democratic processes. New EU rules (2024) are aimed at addressing the growing number of abusive lawsuits against journalists, media outlets, and human rights defenders. 

What are other possible solutions to limit the use of SLAPPs and protect public debate?  

For months, Daan has been trying to get in touch with the right person at the local council about a concern in his neighbourhood. After countless unanswered emails and unsuccessful phone calls, he finally reaches someone who might be able to help. But by now, his frustration has reached a peak. Daan feels unheard and not taken seriously, and he can no longer keep in his anger.

As a citizen, how can you express your concerns constructively in a situation like this, even when emotions are high? And as local council employee, how can you respond to a citizen like Daan, who is angry – not out of bad intentions, but because they feel they haven’t been heard?