Shorten the text below:

Dr. Małecki commented on the current situation in more detail in an interview with the editorial office of Konkret24. - In the case of MEPs, it's not just about liking a post, i.e. an individual reaction to a post. Rather, we are talking about a planned and organized action consisting in the creation of a spot that presented hateful content based on nationality. Then, an organized campaign was planned, which consisted in making this spot public, disseminating it on the Internet and sharing it with people gathered in one party - explained the criminal lawyer (this and subsequent bolds from the editors).
- So such an action certainly cannot be equated with a situation where an anonymous Internet user liked one post. It is necessary to distinguish the behavior of individual Internet users from the situation of planned, hateful hate focused on a certain national group - said Dr. Małecki.
- There is a suspicion that the spot that was liked was a violation of the law and the court will deal with it. The court will examine whether the spot constitutes incitement to hatred. There is also a separate crime - producing hate speech materials for the purpose of disseminating them. It is mentioned in Art. 256, paragraph 1 and 2 of the Penal Code - said the expert.
Dr. Małecki reassures us that we are not responsible for liking itself if the base entry does not violate the law. - If an entry that we share, comment on, like or praise online violates the law in itself, the Penal Code provides for liability for praising, disseminating and promoting illegal content and prohibited ideas. The same applies to criminal liability for such behavior on the Internet, he notes.
- You can hear the narrative that it is a political matter, censoring the Internet and prosecuting people for likes. But let's imagine a situation where someone posts pedophile content on the Internet, and other people start sharing it, liking it and commenting positively on it. Such actions will contribute to the dissemination of pornographic content, which is prohibited by law. And what, then we will also say that it is just a lajkocrime? Of course not. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The fight against pedophilia also requires prosecuting people who share such materials illegally posted on the Internet - said the criminal lawyer in an interview with Konkret24. He added: - These two situations are similar if the material being spread violates the law. If the underlying entry incites hatred, sharing it and liking it in an organized manner may fall under the provisions of the Penal Code, which states, for example, that a group of people jointly and in concert wanted to incite racist hatred among the recipients.
- It is worth noting that liking is not equal to liking. This means that we will approach liking differently by an ordinary Internet user, a private person whose actions do not significantly increase the group of recipients of a given content. Another situation is when someone has a large number of followers - it is known that liking, sharing or commenting has a greater impact on the dissemination of a given content on the Internet. This may affect the extent of the harm and the punishment. Moreover, in the case of a private person, there may be doubts as to why someone liked a given entry, whether the intention was to incite hatred, and so on. In the case of a political spot, which was intended to create a climate in society that immigrants are a threat and we are at risk of violence from them, the creators' intentions are clear. The intention to distribute the spot was obvious, and the purpose of creating a climate of threat and reluctance is also beyond doubt. People holding public functions, especially politicians, must be extremely careful - their messages go out into the world and have a large reach. This then affects the examination of criminal liability if the content they promote violates the law - the greater the reach, the larger the audience, the greater the responsibility for one's words and the more serious the legal consequences - said Dr. Małecki.