“When a woman is not silent and wants to act publicly, she becomes an ideal target for disinformation.”

Which of the information attacks directed against you do you remember the most, or which has left the strongest impact on you?

The worst disinformation attack against me was the one initiated by the former mayor of Koper. It was an attempt to discredit and silence me because he couldn’t challenge me professionally in any other way. Based on complete disinformation, they tried to devalue me as a person and as a woman — spreading lies that a partner had bought me an apartment or a car, that he paid for my cosmetic procedures, and similar claims. These were not even half-truths, but complete fabrications.

This is a classic example of how powerful a weapon disinformation can be, especially against women who dare to step into the public sphere — whether they are journalists, scientists, doctors, or politicians. When a woman is not silent and wants to act publicly, she becomes an ideal target for such attacks, which aim at her professionalism, competence, and ultimately even her appearance or private life. In my case, the intention was clear — to silence, devalue, and discredit me. This case even ended up in court with a conviction, which served as important proof that it was a blatant and deliberate attack.

How did this attack unfold in practice — which mechanisms, media, or communication channels were used, and where did you notice that the story actually began to spread?

The attack began as a consequence of my journalistic work — I had reported on numerous cases of suspected corruption, irrational spending, and non-transparent management of public funds. When attempts to silence me through threats failed, a campaign of discreditation began to escalate.

Everything flared up on the day I went to report on a court hearing related to the mayor. When I asked a question, he responded with personal attacks and insults directed at my body and privacy — what today would be called body shaming. The event was clearly not accidental, as local media, specifically Regional Obala, had been informed in advance and arrived prepared with cameras. The mayor knew it would turn into a “juicy” story.

Before I even returned to the newsroom, the article had already been published, and the information spread like wildfire. This was the main goal — discreditation and creating a false impression in the public eye. Once such disinformation is unleashed, an individual can hardly stop it, because there are no mechanisms to counter a media flood of lies.

How do you think attacks or attempts at discreditation coming from your local environment, where you live and work, differ from those coming from the national level or from the top of power, such as the government or ministries?

I have experienced both types of attacks — local and those at the national level — and I can say that they mainly differ in the type of pain they inflict.

A local attack involved discreditation that invaded my personal life and was very intimate. In the case of a national-level attack, for example by Janša, the use of the word “prostitute” was also disinformation, but it did not penetrate my privacy in the same painfully personal way. In the local case, it was harder to defend my integrity because it was a direct attack targeting my personal life, whereas an attack from the top is more symbolic and politically motivated.

There is also a difference in perception: one can “forgive” a local attacker more easily, because they have less weight or a lower position, whereas it is more painful when attacks come from someone who has held a position of responsibility for many years and sets norms for public communication. Such discreditation is harder to endure because it comes from an authority expected to uphold certain standards of behavior and etiquette.

What role did social media and the comment sections under articles — the more “popular” part of the internet — play in spreading the attack initiated by the mayor and local media?

This narrative definitely continued to spread. The media quickly picked it up, as the clickability of such stories attracts readers. It spread across all social media and various media channels, often under the guise of condemnation.

Some media outlets did not directly spread the disinformation, but they still included insults and lies in articles that were ostensibly criticizing these attacks. Every repetition — during trials or hearings — put the story about me back on the front page and repeatedly returned it to the media space. In this way, the media played a significant role, as it became a more persistent reference in the public sphere, regardless of the emotional tone or outrage of individual readers.

What were the consequences of these repeated discreditations — both on a personal level and on a broader societal level — and what would you identify as the main harm or the main outcome of these attacks?

The consequences of these repeated discreditations were very personal and severe for me. The attacks intruded on my private life, family, property, status, and credibility as a journalist. For example, there were claims that I had bought an apartment or a car through corruption, which were completely false — all my assets are transparent, and I have never received any gift or support that could be considered questionable.

Defending oneself was extremely difficult, as an individual does not have access to the same media channels as the attacker. The only leverage you have is your own media platform or social network, through which you can clarify the truth and hope to be more credible than the attacker. Fortunately, I had access to such a channel, though defending myself could not extend to revealing all my personal and financial documents.

The consequences were also felt at the family level — my mother often worried about the situation, and my children experienced stress from the trials and media pressure while they were still young. The attacks also spread through radio shows, where jokes and parodies were made at my expense, which was difficult to endure as a public figure, even if some things were presented as humor.

The entire experience showed that a victim of discreditation is exposed to a wide spectrum of consequences — from personal hurt, pressure on the family, to public stigmatization that can last for a long time.

You mentioned that you use your own social media channel to clarify matters. Do you believe there are other ways to counter attacks, such as legal proceedings, police reports, or private lawsuits, especially if the attacks involve threats or insults?

I had previously received threatening messages in which I was warned of serious bodily harm and property damage — among other things, they threatened to gouge out my eyes or damage my car. When I reported such threats to the police, it turned out that the effectiveness of legal protection was practically zero.

For example, one woman threatened me via Messenger. The police did manage to trace the IP address, but the case had already expired because it wasn’t processed in time. Cases like this show that attacks are often brushed aside, especially when the perpetrators are men.

Even the case that reached the Supreme Court showed the same pattern: a man who made inappropriate comments intruding on my private space later claimed it was a “compliment,” and some judges even agreed. In my view, this clearly demonstrates that patriarchal mentalities remain deeply entrenched in both judicial and societal practices.

In this context, who should respond in such situations — the police, the public prosecutor’s office, employers, journalist associations, trade unions — and in your opinion, how do these different actors perform? Who causes the most harm in this area, and who does the least of what they would theoretically be expected to do?

A journalistics’ association can only play a formal role — it can condemn the matter and publicly defend you, but in practice it has no real tools to provide meaningful help. The same goes for workplace organizations or trade unions. They can offer legal protection if you decide to file a lawsuit, but in my cases, I largely had to manage on my own.

For example, I followed lawsuits against Popovič and Zimmermann by myself, with just a microphone and camera. For the first hearing in Ljubljana, I traveled without legal representation because my lawyer from Kranj told me I would have to handle it myself.

Even when cooperating with other legal actors, it largely depended on me how the cases would be conducted. That said, I believe the police are fairly effective, except in certain cases where prosecution is barred by statute. With the prosecution and courts, there is often insufficiently clear legislation to protect victims. Freedom of speech exists, but there are limits, and in my opinion, the legislation is not yet strong enough to clearly define them.

Do you think stricter legislation is needed to prevent insults, hate speech, and discreditation, or do you believe that initiatives in this area are often halted due to concerns about potential abuses — for example, that excessive regulation could lead to political manipulation or restrictions on freedom of expression?

Regarding stricter legislation, I believe the issue is complex. Of course, it is necessary to define the boundaries — where freedom of speech ends and abuse begins — but it is not a simple black-and-white matter. These boundaries are constantly shifting, while the space for the most severe insults and discreditation keeps expanding.

Although there is a risk of abuse, such as political manipulation, I think it is essential to strengthen legal protection against insults and disinformation. There is a significant difference between calling someone a “fool” and labeling them a “fascist” or “Nazi” — the latter carries far greater weight and can seriously harm an individual.

The COVID period and the spread of disinformation have shown how quickly false information and hate speech can reach the masses. With millions of comments and viral content, it is difficult to keep up, even though people try through education and verifying credible sources. That is why I believe it is crucial for legislation to clearly define these boundaries, while also being careful to prevent potential abuses of the system, so that journalists or activists are not silenced.