5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Kópavogur. At the material time he was a well-known person in Iceland who for years had published articles, blogs and books and appeared in films, on television and other media, under pseudonyms.
6.  In November 2011, an 18-year-old woman reported to the police that the applicant and his girlfriend had raped her. In January 2012 another woman reported to the police that the applicant had committed a sexual offence against her a few years earlier. Upon the completion of the police investigation the Public Prosecutor, on 15 June and 15 November 2012, dismissed the cases in accordance with Article 145 of the Act on Criminal Procedures, because the evidence which had been gathered was not sufficient or likely to lead to a conviction. The applicant submitted a complaint to the police about allegedly false accusations made against him by the two women. This case was also dismissed.
7.  On 22 November 2012 Monitor, a magazine accompanying Morgunblaðið (a leading newspaper in Iceland), published an interview with the applicant. A picture of the applicant was published on the front page and in the interview the applicant discussed the rape accusation against him. The applicant claimed several times that the accusations were false. He stated, inter alia, that it was not a priority for him for the girl’s name to be exposed and that he was not seeking revenge against her. He accepted that having placed himself in the spotlight of the media he had to tolerate publicity which was not always “sunshine and lollipops” but criticised the way the media had covered his case. When asked about the girl’s age, he responded that the girl had been in a club where the minimum age had been 20 years and that it had been a shock to find out later that she had been only 18 years old. When asked about his complaints against the girl for allegedly wrongful accusations, he stated again that he was not seeking revenge against those who had reported him to the police, but that it was clear that they had had ulterior motives. He hoped that the police would see that it was important to have a formal conclusion in the case and that the documents in the case were “screaming” conspiracy.
8.  On the same day, X published an altered version of the applicant’s front-page picture with the caption “Fuck you rapist bastard” on his account on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application. X had altered the picture by drawing an upside down cross on the applicant’s forehead and writing “loser” across his face.
9.  Apparently X had believed that only his friends and acquaintances, who were his “followers” on Instagram, had access to the pictures he published. However, his pictures were also accessible to other Instagram users.
10.  On 23 November 2012 the newspaper Vísir published an online article about X’s post, along with the altered picture and an interview with the applicant.
11.  On 26 November 2012 the applicant’s lawyer sent a letter to X requesting that he withdraw his statement, apologise in the media and pay the applicant punitive damages. By email the same day, X’s lawyer submitted that X had not distributed the picture online; it had been posted for a closed group of friends on Instagram and others had distributed it. Furthermore, the email stated that X was sorry and that the picture had been shared without his consent or knowledge.
12.  On 17 December 2012, the applicant lodged defamation proceedings against X before the District Court of Reykjavík and asked for him to be sentenced to punishment, under the applicable provisions of the Penal Code, for altering the picture and for publishing it on Instagram with the caption “Fuck you rapist bastard”. The applicant further requested that the statement “Fuck you rapist bastard” be declared null and void and that X be ordered to pay him 1,000,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK; approximately 8,800 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages under the Tort Liability Act, plus interest, ISK 150,000 (approximately 1,300 EUR) for publishing the judgment in the media under Article 241 of the Penal Code, and the applicant’s legal costs.
13.  By judgment of 1 November 2013, the District Court found against the applicant. The court stated, inter alia, that the applicant enjoyed the personal protection afforded by law, irrespective of which of his pseudonyms he was using. In the same way, the applicant had to take responsibility for material he issued, irrespective of the name he chose to use when doing so. The court further considered that the altered picture, along with the text, should be considered as a whole and that it contained X’s opinion of the applicant’s person, which indicated a strong dislike. As to the subject matter, the District Court found that the picture and the statement had been a part of general public debate because the applicant was a well-known person in Iceland and had to accept being the subject of public discussions. The court then described in detail his professional activities of writing online, publishing books and appearing on television, especially under pseudonyms, the subject matter of his work, the subsequent criticism of his work and his participation in public debates about it. The court noted that this had led to greater outcry and public debate about the accusations against him of sexual offences, a debate in which he had participated. The court concluded that the manner in which the words had been presented by X had been more invective than a factual statement, and should therefore be considered as a value judgment rather than a statement of fact. X’s statement had been within the bounds of freedom of expression granted to him by law.
14.  On 26 March 2014 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against the District Court’s judgment. Before the Supreme Court the applicant reiterated his argument that X’s Instagram account had been an “open” account, meaning that the picture had been accessible not only to his followers but to all Instagram users, over 100,000,000 people at the material time. He submitted further documents to support his argument.
15.  By judgment of 20 November 2014 the majority of the Supreme Court (two out of three judges) upheld the District Court’s conclusion. The Supreme Court accepted that the altered picture had been accessible, not only to X’s followers on Instagram, but to other users as well.
16.  Furthermore, the judgment contained the following reasons:
“[X] claims that his act of uploading the altered picture onto the picture-sharing application in question did not constitute the publication of the picture within the meaning of Article 236(2) of the Penal Code No 19/1940, as he had believed that only a limited number of people would have access to it. This cannot be accepted, as the act of making something accessible in electronic format to such a large number of people as stated above, irrespective of whether the persons in question are the friends and acquaintances of the person doing so, [...], is considered to be a publication according to the traditional definition of the term. It remains to be determined whether [X’s] publication of the picture had, given the circumstances, constituted a defamatory allegation against the [applicant] under Article 235 of the Penal Code.
The appealed judgment describes in detail that, before the complaints of sexual offences against him as described above had been reported, [the applicant] had been a well-known person, not least for his performance in public under the names of Gillz or Gillzenegger, the names under which he wrote on Internet, published books and pictures and presented himself in the media. The views of the [applicant] published there garnered some attention, as well as controversy; views which included his attitudes towards women and their sexual freedom. The documents of the case reveal that there were instances when his criticism had been directed towards named individuals, often women, and in some cases his words could be construed to mean that he was in fact recommending that they should be subjected to sexual violence. The [applicant] has often justified such conduct by stating that the material had been meant in jest and that those who criticised it lacked a sense of humour. The Supreme Court agrees with the District Court that the [applicant] enjoys the personal protection provided for by law, under Article 71 of the Constitution and Article 8(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, cf. Act No 62/1994, irrespective of whether he was appearing under his own name or a pseudonym. In the same manner, he must take responsibility for the material he produces, irrespective of what name he chooses to use.
When the [applicant] gave the aforementioned newspaper interview and employed provocative, if not derogatory, comments about others, including the girl who had accused him of sexual offences, he launched a public debate and should, moreover, have known that his comments would result in strong reactions from those who strongly disliked his abovementioned views. [X] enjoys freedom of expression according to Article 73(2) of the Icelandic Constitution and Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the District Court reached the correct conclusion that under these circumstances he had enjoyed greater freedom to express himself about the [applicant] and his opinions.
In assessing whether or not comments or other expressions can be considered a defamatory allegation according to Article 235 of the General Penal Code, taking into consideration the manner in which the provision of Article 10 of the [Convention] has been clarified by the European Court of Human Rights, it has to be decided whether the expression involved a value judgment or a factual statement. Although it can be agreed that by using the term ‘rapist’ about a named person, that person is being accused of committing rape, account must be taken of the context in which the term is set, cf. the ruling of the Supreme Court on 29 January 2009 in Case No 321/2008. If the altered picture and the comment ‘Fuck you rapist bastard’ are taken as a whole – as the parties agree should be the case – the Supreme Court agrees with the District Court that this was a case of invective on the part of [X] against the [applicant] in a ruthless public debate, which the latter, as stated previously, had instigated. It was therefore a value judgment about the [applicant] and not a factual statement that he was guilty of committing rape. In this context, it makes a difference, even though this alone is not decisive for the conclusion, that [X] did not maintain that the [applicant] had thus committed a criminal offence against someone else, named or unnamed. Accordingly, and with reference to the conclusion of the appealed judgment, the conclusion that [X] expressed himself within the limits of the freedom to which he is entitled under Article 73(2) of the Constitution, must be upheld. As a result he is acquitted of all the [applicant’s] claims.
As is rightly stated in the appealed ruling, the modified picture and the comments of [X] attached thereto were indecent and tasteless with respect to the [applicant]. For this reason, and with reference to Article 130(3), cf. Article 166 of Act No 91/1991 on Civil Procedure, legal costs before both court instances will be cancelled.”
17.  In the minority’s opinion, the statement “Fuck you rapist bastard”, considered in the light of the content of the article published by Monitor, could not be considered a value judgment but rather a grave insinuation that the applicant had committed a serious criminal offence. The minority concluded that, considering that the criminal investigation had ended with the case against the applicant being dismissed, and even if the applicant was a public person who had expressed himself in a controversial way in public, he should not have to tolerate this kind of comment.