The legal proceedings initiated by Márton Pál and Ádám Hanol against the newspaper ended with the victory of the Christian newspaper, the editors announced. But why did LGBTQ activists sue Sunday and what is the lesson of the case?

The Christian public newspaper was cited in court by two nationally known faces of the rainbow movement because they believed that a previous article in the paper - although it did not name anyone - was aimed at them and wondered what kind of life a child who has "two daddies" would have later on. brings up.

In the case, the first-instance proceedings gave Pálék the truth, although in their victory report published at the time on their social media page, they also predicted that the case would certainly continue. (For the time being, they have not communicated anything to their followers about the second-degree verdict.) The interesting thing about the case was that the court was only willing to hear the plaintiffs' witnesses, the witnesses presented by the newspaper were not even allowed to enter the court building...

Since the friends of Pál and Hanol testified that they immediately associated them with their acquaintances after reading the article, the judge ruled that anyone else would have inferred them, and thus the reputation of the couple, who otherwise openly undertake their activism and play a central role in the domestic LGBTQ movement, was damaged.

However, the newspaper decided to appeal and stand by its truth. The press rectification trial continued in the second instance, during which the Capital Court of Justice finally changed the previous judge's decision.

The judging panel supported its decision with a detailed justification of nearly sixty points, which, according to several of our sources familiar with the case, could become a precedent.

According to the justification, the topic, which was also raised by the publicism of the Christian newspaper, became a public issue during the wide-ranging social debate, and Márton Pál and Ádám Hanol "voluntarily undertook to disclose their personal situation in detail to the public and their position regarding the amendment of the legal norms related to the adoption procedure is public became part of the ongoing public dialogue on a topic of public interest, active shapers of the public debate .

The court ruled that the basic message of the ominous article It is known: according to the law, only married couples and single persons are allowed to adopt. Based on the paper's reasoning, it can thus be concluded that "if the adopted child is not brought up by a married couple or a single person, it is presumably the result of circumventing the legal environment" .

The full article can be read here.