FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE OR THE RIGHT TO RESPECT? ETHICAL BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC INSULTS DIRECTED AT POLICE OFFICERS

Santrauka

The article analyzes the ethical boundaries between the public criticism of police officers that is essential in a democratic society and public insults that violate their human and professional dignity. The expansion of digital communication and the growing role of social media have intensified interactions between citizens and law enforcement institutions, but have also contributed to an increase in degrading and aggressive forms of communication. Drawing on the theoretical foundations of professional police ethics, human rights, discourse ethics, the harm principle, and virtue ethics, the article aims to establish where legitimate, argument-based public criticism ends and dignity-violating, destructive public insults begin. The aim of the study is to determine the ethical boundaries distinguishing permissible public criticism of police officers from forms of communication that violate their human and professional dignity and undermine the authority of the police institution. To achieve this aim, two objectives are set: to discuss the concepts of police professional ethics and dignity, highlighting their significance for public trust in police, and to theoretically substantiate a system of ethical criteria separating constructive criticism from degrading, dignity-violating communication. The study employs scientific literature and document analysis, comparative theoretical analysis, and logical and systemic analysis, which together made it possible to integrate different ethical perspectives into a coherent system of criteria. The analysis reveals that police professional ethics rests on two interrelated dimensions of dignity, an innate human dignity and socially constructed professional dignity, which derives from the societal importance of police functions and the ethical expectations placed on officers. Public insults violate both dimensions, causing psychological and professional harm to officers, weakening their motivation, and undermining the legitimacy of the police institution. Based on discourse ethics, the harm principle, and virtue ethics, a five-criterion system is formulated to clearly distinguish constructive criticism from insult: the object of criticism must concern actions rather than the person; the intention must be to correct rather than to degrade; justification must rely on arguments rather than emotions; proportionality must correspond to the situation; and the impact must not violate dignity. The article concludes that respectful, reasoned criticism is an essential condition of a democratic society, whereas degrading communication cannot be regarded as a legitimate form of public debate, as it harms both individual officers’ dignity and the public’s trust in the police as an institution.