How much does a verdict for words cost? The case of Oliwia Olejniczak

In brief

The court imposed a fine of 3,000 PLN and charged the defendant with legal costs based on Article 256 § 1 of the Penal Code.
The verdict orders the content of the judgment to be made public in Zamość for a period of six months.
The case concerns a speech during the "Stop Immigration" demonstration, where slogans about "importing blackness" and "a Pole as the master in Poland" were chanted.

Course of the demonstration and controversial slogans

Oliwia Olejniczak has received a verdict that closes the case regarding her speech from a year ago. The court sentenced the 21-year-old All-Polish Youth activist to a 3,000 PLN fine. In addition, there is an obligation to cover legal costs and an order to make the verdict public in Zamość for the next six months. This is the finale of a story that began on July 19, 2025, during a demonstration under the slogan "Stop Immigration".

The event was a legal gathering. Olejniczak, speaking to those gathered in Zamość, used rhetoric aimed at the state's migration policy. Slogans such as "A Pole as the master in Poland" and "Down with immigration!" were shouted from the crowd. However, it was the defendant's specific words that became the flashpoint of the trial. Her statement about the alleged "importing of blackness" that is supposedly flooding Poland was widely quoted in the media.

For defenders of free speech, including organizations such as Ordo Iuris, the verdict is a disturbing signal. The court ruled that the boundaries of public debate had been crossed, classifying the statements as incitement to hatred. On the other hand, this verdict raises questions about where political criticism ends and punishable hate speech begins. The court's guilty verdict makes the 21-year-old's case a reference point for future cases involving public speeches. Now the question remains whether the ruling will cause a chilling effect or rather become fuel for supporters of more radical language in politics. For now, for Olejniczak, the case means a real financial burden and the necessity of publicly disclosing the court's decision.

Court verdict: 3,000 PLN fine and public notice

The verdict, which was handed down on July 16, 2026, in Zamość, leaves no illusions about the costs that Oliwia Olejniczak will bear for her public statements. The judge ruled on the 21-year-old's guilt, pointing to a violation of Article 256 § 1 of the Penal Code, which penalizes incitement to hatred based on nationality or race. The case, which resonated widely in the media, ends with a specific financial burden and a severe reputational penalty.

Here is a precise breakdown of the consequences imposed by the court:

A fine of 3,000 PLN, constituting a direct penalty for the act attributed to the convicted person.
Charging of legal costs, which in practice means the necessity to cover expenses incurred by the State Treasury during the proceedings before the court of first instance.
An order to make the verdict public, which in this case took the form of a six-month information obligation in the Zamość area.

The financial dimension of the penalty is just the tip of the iceberg. The order to publicize the verdict in Zamość for six months is a tool with a much stronger social impact than the fine itself. For the 21-year-old mother, this means long-term stigmatization in the local community.

Lawyers from Ordo Iuris, who became involved in the case, have already announced an appeal. The defense argues that the defendant's statements were made during a legal demonstration, which in their view should exclude the hallmarks of a crime. At the moment, however, until the verdict becomes final, the convicted person must reckon with the obligation to execute the ruling. The court had no doubts: one must pay for words about "importing blackness." Literally and in terms of reputation.

Ordo Iuris and voices of opposition to the verdict

Ordo Iuris does not accept the Zamość ruling. The institute has officially announced an appeal against the verdict, which in their view strikes at fundamental civil rights. The organization's lawyers point to a dangerous precedent: punishing for statements made during a legal demonstration.

The case is stirring up significant emotions outside the courtroom. In the media space, including on the wPolsce24 channel, the topic of the convicted person's life situation regularly returns. It was emphasized there with insistence that Oliwia Olejniczak is a young mother, and the imposed consequences — a 3,000 PLN fine, legal costs, and the order to make the verdict public in Zamość for half a year — are a severe burden for her.

In conservative circles, however, the discussion goes beyond the individual case. Warning voices are appearing that the verdict may cause a chilling effect. The fears are clear: "people will start to be afraid to speak." This is a classic dilemma between protecting public debate and punishing content deemed unacceptable.

Regardless of the court's intentions, such a ruling always becomes political fuel. On one side of the barricade stands the narrative about disciplining for hate speech, on the other — about restricting free speech in the name of political correctness. For an outside observer, this is a signal that the Zamość verdict is only the beginning of a longer appellate process, which will likely once again collide these two completely different worlds.

Debate on free speech in Poland

The court in Zamość fined Oliwia Olejniczak 3,000 PLN. Legal costs were added to this amount, and the ruling orders the verdict to be made public in the Zamość area for the next six months. This is the finale of a case that dominated debates about the limits of permissible criticism of mass immigration in July 2026.

For many observers, the verdict is a significant precedent. The judges set a line, the crossing of which in public speeches is treated as incitement to hatred. The case of the 21-year-old, who used the term "importing blackness" during a demonstration, has ceased to be a local incident. Reports from "Dziennik Wschodni" described strong emotions and the defendant's tears at the moment the court's decision was announced, which became one of the most commented images of this trial.

In the background, a dispute about free speech is smoldering. Circles defending Olejniczak, including Ordo Iuris, are announcing a fight in the appeal, arguing that people will start to be afraid to express their opinions out loud. On the other hand, the verdict is a hard signal for demonstration organizers. The state is not turning a blind eye to rhetoric that the court deemed to exceed the framework of public debate. Will the punishment silence critics of immigration policy, or rather strengthen the narrative about alleged persecution for one's views? Today's decision in Zamość does not end this discussion. It only intensifies it.

What this means for you

The verdict in the Oliwia Olejniczak case is a signal to demonstration organizers that the boundary between free speech and hate speech is strictly monitored by the courts. Law enforcement agencies gain, as they receive a strong tool for enforcing the provisions of Article 256 of the Penal Code, while nationalist circles lose, as they must reckon with legal costs for radical rhetoric. The catch is the long-term chilling effect — it may limit public debate on immigration for fear of criminal consequences.

Questions and answers

On what legal basis was Oliwia Olejniczak convicted?

Oliwia Olejniczak was convicted based on Article 256 § 1 of the Penal Code, which penalizes incitement to hatred based on nationality or race.

Will the convicted person appeal the verdict?

Yes, the Ordo Iuris organization, supporting the activist, has announced an appeal against the Zamość court's verdict.

What penalty was imposed on the activist?

The court imposed a fine of 3,000 PLN, charged her with legal costs, and ordered the verdict to be made public in Zamość for a period of six months.