However, it is worth mentioning that the perpetrator of the infringement of personal rights will be relieved from the responsibility, if their action was not illegal, e.g. a journalist, who published material infringing personal rights, will be relieved from the responsibility, if they acted in defence of a justified social interest and kept particular diligence and reliability while collecting and using the material. In that case, protection of personal rights will be difficult. It should be added, however, that the Civil Code presumes lawlessness and it is the defendant in a suit for infringement of personal rights (in this case, the journalist) who must prove the existence of circumstances justifying the act and thus eliminating the lawlessness. In simpler terms, the defendant will have to show that the violation of personal rights could have been done, as if legally, in pursuit of a higher good. But in many cases something that in fact can be considered a violation of personal rights will not be so. Let us illustrate this with an example: If you have good eyesight, then if someone alludes to this feature by pointing out that you have overlooked something, it is unlikely to be particularly painful for you. Even if someone calls you blind, as a rule your first reaction will be to take an interest in what you have failed to notice, and you will not treat this as an infringement of personal rights. On the other hand, addressing a person moving around with a white cane in the same manner, may be interpreted completely differently and lead to a violation of personal rights and other consequences that will require a legal response. It is worth pointing out that there is a tendency to assign more and more goods the character of personal rights, which is connected with the continuous social and economic development. This direction should be assessed in two ways. On the one hand, the fact that it is an adequate response of the law to the needs of the modern world should be assessed positively. On the other hand, however, creative interpretation of the Civil Code increases the fear that goods which are not so important and significant will be subject to strong legal protection provided for personal rights