When Crime Becomes a Podcast – On the Protection of Personal Rights in True Crime Podcasts

Crime has always fascinated audiences as a theme in literature, journalism, and film. In recent years, true crime podcasts — narrating real-life stories of murders and disappearances with the tension and precision of a thriller — have gained remarkable popularity. Listeners become absorbed in the narratives, analyze motives, and follow the fates of victims and perpetrators. Yet behind every such story lies someone’s real life — often a tragedy that never truly ended for the victim’s loved ones. The question arises: does telling someone else’s story of suffering stay within the limits of the law?

When does a crime story become journalism?

Importantly, podcasts may qualify as press within the meaning of the Polish Press Law Act of 26 January 1984. This means that if a podcast constitutes a periodical publication that does not form a closed and homogeneous whole, is published at least once a year, and has a fixed title or name, an issue number, and a publication date, it may formally fall under the provisions of press law.

According to the judgment of the Polish Supreme Court, “periodicity of online publications means continuity and cyclicality of informing the public on a designated website, not the regularity of intervals between individual publications. The possibility of multiple modifications of website content through its updates does not deprive it of the periodic nature” and “under certain internet addresses – which can perform the same function as a permanent title of a printed publication – there exist websites with fixed names on which press materials may be published.[1]” This interpretation further indicates that some podcasts may indeed be classified as press.

Recognizing a podcast as press entails certain legal obligations, particularly relevant to the topic at hand. The Act introduces important restrictions, including a prohibition on expressing opinions regarding the outcome of judicial proceedings before the first-instance judgment has been issued. This aims to safeguard the presumption of innocence and the independence of the judiciary. It also prohibits the publication of images or personal data of persons against whom preparatory or judicial proceedings are pending, as well as witnesses, victims, and injured parties — unless such individuals have given their consent. In practice, this means that true crime podcasters who publish content about ongoing cases must exercise particular caution, both in formulating opinions and in disclosing personal data.

Where curiosity ends and violation begins…

However, obligations arising from press law are only part of the story. In the context of the growing popularity of true crime podcasts, the right to privacy takes on particular importance. This right, one of the fundamental human rights, guarantees individuals protection against the unauthorized disclosure of information about their private lives. It grants every person the right to control data concerning themselves — to decide whether they wish to remain anonymous or allow information about them to be made public[2].

Podcast creators often recount real crimes, quoting details about victims, perpetrators, and even their families. While the intent may be educational or aimed at raising public awareness, there remains a risk of violating the privacy of individuals who have not consented to the disclosure of personal details. Sensitive information enabling the identification of a person — even without mentioning their full name — can lead to secondary victimization of victims or their relatives.

How to protect what is invisible?

In true crime podcasts, there is also a real risk of infringing other personal rights, particularly the cult of memory of the deceased. Such violation may occur through the unlawful or sensationalized depiction of the circumstances of a person’s death, which offends the dignity of the deceased and the feelings of their family. Publishing painful or humiliating details of a case can cause emotional distress and the sense that the memory of a loved one has been desecrated. There is also the risk of misrepresenting the actual course of events or attributing false behaviors to victims, perpetrators, or their families.

Other personal rights that may be infringed include honour and good name — both of victims and perpetrators, as well as their families, who often appear as the “background” to the entire story. The risk is particularly high in cases of wrongful accusations or convictions — as practice shows, some individuals have obtained justice only after many years.

Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that even though a perpetrator has committed a criminal act, this does not justify unrestricted violation of their dignity — especially when the information presented in a podcast is inaccurate, exaggerated, or emotionally charged. As for victims, a violation of their good name may occur through implying co-responsibility, questioning their credibility, or revealing irrelevant aspects of their private lives. It must be remembered that “creative freedom cannot serve to demean the honour or memory of a particular person. An artist must not abuse so powerful an instrument as artistic work to insult human dignity[3]”.

Legal, yet uncomfortable

It is worth remembering that Polish law provides circumstances under which creators — particularly those tackling difficult or controversial topics — may tell their stories lawfully, provided they do so truthfully and with respect for facts.

One such circumstance is consent of the person who is to become the subject of the story (or, in the case of deceased individuals, consent of their relatives). If such consent is given voluntarily and knowingly, the podcast cannot be deemed to unlawfully infringe personal rights. Another circumstance excluding unlawfulness is acting in defense of a legitimate interest. It is in the public interest to engage in social critique, provided it is reliable, factual, based on carefully collected and verified information, and does not exceed what is necessary to achieve the intended purpose[4]. However, there should be no automatic assumption that invoking the public interest always excludes unlawfulness — each case must be assessed individually to balance conflicting rights: the right to protection of personal interests on one hand, and freedom of expression and criticism on the other[5]. Therefore, while truthfulness alone does not always exclude unlawfulness, journalistic diligence and acting within the boundaries of the law may serve as strong arguments in potential legal disputes.

Podcast creators thus face an exceptionally challenging task: to tell a compelling story that captivates listeners, while ensuring that every statement is carefully considered — avoiding infringement of personal rights, breaches of privacy, or distortion of truth. It is a delicate balance that requires not only talent, but also legal awareness and ethical responsibility.

[1] Judgment of the Supreme Court of 28 October 2016, case no. I CSK 695/15, OSNC 2017, No. 6, item 73.

[2] Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Białystok of 20 September 2018, case no. I ACa 379/18, LEX No. 2574866.

[3] Judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 November 1979, case no. I CR 232/79, LEX No. 63839.

[4] Judgment of the Supreme Court of 12 April 2023, case no. II CSKP 1021/22, OSNC-ZD 2023, No. 4, item 51.

[5] Judgment of the Supreme Court of 21 May 2015, case no. IV CSK 557/14, LEX No. 1733681.