7 June, 00:36
In March 2025, Ukraine witnessed a dangerous precedent that challenges the very notion of free speech in wartime: Volodymyr Boyko, a serviceman in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and investigative journalist, reported the extrajudicial blocking of his personal blog after publishing an investigation into alleged corruption by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets.
Censorship was enforced at the direct request of the subject of the article — Mr. Lubinets himself, with no court order, and executed by the State Special Communications Service of Ukraine.
🔗 Source
Statement by Volodymyr Boyko, published via Telegram and his personal blog:
“In March 2025, the Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets, submitted a request to the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) to impose extrajudicial sanctions against me — at that time an active-duty serviceman — for publishing evidence of Lubinets embezzling state funds and misappropriating humanitarian aid.”
🔗 Full article: https://volodymyrboyko.wordpress.com/2024/11/17/lubinets/
📛 How Journalism Gets Blocked
According to Boyko, after he published an article titled “The Commissioner for Corruption” on his blog “Chronicles of Ukrainian Fools”, Lubinets contacted the State Special Communications Service — specifically General Viktor Potiy, head of the National Center for Operational and Technical Management (NCU) — requesting a nationwide block of the site and all platforms that reprinted the article.
The official pretext?
An alleged violation of data privacy law — namely the publication of vehicle registration certificates for cars donated by NGOs for child evacuations from frontline areas, which Lubinets allegedly registered to a close associate: his accountant, Oleh Yakymenko.
‼️ There was no court ruling. No independent investigation. Only a request by the subject of the report — and the site was gone.
⚖️ Legally Baseless
Boyko filed a lawsuit to challenge the block. In response, the NCU submitted a legal rebuttal that openly stated:
“The plaintiff has provided no evidence that the published information does not harm national interests or violate data protection laws.”
This effectively reverses the burden of proof: investigative journalists must now prove their innocence in advance — or risk being silenced.
🔍 But what does the law actually say?
Article 34 of Ukraine’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression — even during martial law.
The Law on Personal Data Protection permits the publication of information of public interest, especially involving public officials.
The Ombudsman has no legal authority to initiate the blocking of websites.
And yet, in today’s Ukraine, it seems he does. Because press freedom is now subject to administrative whim.
🧨 From Censorship to Norm
This case reveals a disturbing trend: government officials using digital infrastructure to suppress criticism, under the guise of “national security.”
“Under Yanukovych, at least we could expose government theft without being blocked. Now, you need to pre-clear your blog posts with the authorities, just in case some official doesn’t like what you write,” says Boyko.
🛡️ FAKEOFF's Editorial Position
Freedom of speech is not a luxury. It is a pillar of the very state Ukraine claims to be defending.
We demand:
That the State Special Communications Service refrain from politically motivated digital censorship.
That the Ombudsman’s Office cease abusing its mandate to silence dissent.
That Ukrainian courts uphold constitutional standards in the ongoing lawsuit filed by Volodymyr Boyko.
A country at war must not declare war on journalism.
📩 If you or your platform has been similarly targeted, contact the FAKEOFF editorial team. Censorship will not go unanswered.