We live in the age of information technology, where social media has become not only a means of communication but also a full-fledged information space that bears the hallmarks of public expression. That is why posts on Facebook, as on other social media platforms, if they are open to an indefinite audience, can be regarded as public statements with corresponding legal consequences—that is, they can result in criminal liability.

Imagine this scenario: just yesterday you posted on Facebook (which is a public space) that “all thieves should be lined up against the wall,” and today there’s a knock at your door—a search warrant. Law enforcement agencies also closely monitor your page and see not just emotions and outrage, but threats and incitement to violence. Be prepared for the fact that after such posts, your words may end up as an entry in the official record. Every public post can be interpreted as intent, motive, or even a confession to committing a criminal offense. Every word, comment, or public statement has consequences that can lead to criminal liability and serve as grounds for initiating criminal proceedings. This is no longer just some casual discussion—it is the subject of an investigation that is accessible to everyone and can be turned into evidence. And then, just like in the movies, only without a director:
page review—report—expert analysis—suspicion.

The Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for criminal liability for the dissemination of information on the internet.

Prior to the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Criminal Code contained nine articles that provided for criminal liability for the dissemination of certain types of information, including on the internet:

• Article 109 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: actions aimed at the violent change or overthrow of the constitutional order or the seizure of state power;
• Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: encroachment upon the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine;
• Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: high treason;
• Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations;
• Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: violation of the equality of citizens based on their race, nationality, religious affiliation, religious beliefs, disability, or other characteristics;
• Article 258-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: public calls to commit a terrorist act;
• Article 295 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: incitement to commit acts that threaten public order;
• Article 436 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: propaganda of war;
• Article 436-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: the manufacture and distribution of communist or Nazi symbols, and the propaganda of communist and National Socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, most of the aforementioned articles have remained unchanged; however, amendments were made to several articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine that provide for criminal liability for the dissemination of information after the start of the full-scale invasion, specifically to Articles 111, 114-2, 161, and 436 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

It’s important to remember that a Facebook post isn’t just a cry into the void—it’s a digital footprint that can serve as grounds for initiating a criminal case. After all, words carry weight under the Code of Criminal Procedure. And if they are spoken publicly—on your Facebook page, which is accessible to everyone—they can become evidence. And then, just like in a movie, only without a director: page review—report—expert analysis—suspicion.

How exactly does a Facebook post become evidence?

The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine specifies which documents may be deemed admissible and used as evidence; it is sufficient for them to be properly recorded (Art. 99 of the CPC of Ukraine). The investigator, together with witnesses (or using video recording as provided for in Article 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), inspects the webpage, draws up a report, attaches screenshots, and then a cybersecurity expert determines that you are indeed the author of the post.

Your emotional post is already a motive. And if there are specific actions, then there is intent as well. And if you add: “I did this because I was tired of impunity,”—then that’s a confession.

And now a criminal case has been opened—not about freedom of speech, but about proving guilt.

In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court reached a well-founded conclusion that information disseminated via the internet, which is directed at an unlimited audience, constitutes mass media. At the same time, an online publication (website) is a medium intended for the public dissemination of printed or audiovisual information—that is, it is a mass media outlet. Facebook, in turn, is a well-known social network on the Internet where the defendant published posts intended for an unlimited audience. It is evident from the posts themselves that they were intended to incite others to bring about a violent change, overthrow the constitutional order, and seize state power in Ukraine. Since the social network Facebook operates online and the information on its users’ pages—unless the page owner has restricted access to it— is publicly available, this social network, in the Supreme Court’s view, serves as a means by which such information is disseminated to an unlimited or indefinite audience.

The Supreme Court also concurred with the appellate court, which noted that the fact that the convicted person does not qualify as a public figure does not affect the classification of his actions, since the perpetrator of the criminal offense is a natural person of sound mind who has reached the age of 16.

Ruling of the Panel of Judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated November 29, 2023, in Case No. 595/359/21 (Proceedings No. 51-5402km23).

Thus, the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees everyone the right to freedom of thought and speech, and to the free expression of their views and beliefs (Art. 34 of the Constitution). This fundamental right is also enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it is important to understand that national and international law recognize that this right is not absolute and may be restricted in the interests of national security, public order, or other protected interests.

This clarification constitutes the legal mechanism that allows the state to intervene in the exercise of freedom of speech if a publication poses a threat to national security, public order, or other protected interests. Thus, even a public post on the social network Facebook can have legal significance if its content meets the criteria for an offense under criminal law.