Contents
New Regulations Target “Patostreaming” and Online Misconduct
For over a decade, “patostreaming”—live streams featuring abusive, often illegal, and disturbing content—has plagued the internet. While several attempts have been made to regulate it, the problem has persistently eluded a definitive solution. Now, new regulations proposed by Poland’s Civic Coalition aim to change this, impacting not only toxic creators but also ordinary internet users. This raises crucial questions: How will these new laws be enforced, and what do they mean for average internet users?
Understanding the Persistent Challenge of Patostreaming
Despite numerous promises in recent years, the issue of patostreaming in Poland has remained unresolved. However, a new glimmer of hope emerged in late January with a legislative proposal from the Civic Coalition. While these proposed solutions aim to tackle the problem head-on, they also contain a potential loophole that could inadvertently allow the proliferation of pathological content online, despite significant penalties.
Key Amendments to the Criminal Code
The solution, put forward by Education Minister Barbara Nowacka and Member of Parliament Roman Giertych, proposes an expansion of Article 255b of the Polish Criminal Code. Under the new provisions, disseminating content online that documents forbidden acts would be subject to criminal sanctions, potentially carrying a prison sentence ranging from three months to five years.
Interestingly, the same penalties will apply to individuals illegally advertising gambling, including sports betting. The Civic Coalition publicly announced this initiative:
The Civic Coalition says ENOUGH to online pathology. We have submitted an amendment to the Criminal Code, which provides for a penalty of 3 months to 5 years imprisonment for creating patostreams and illegal promotion of gambling by influencers.
Why is this necessary? The numbers are terrifying: 📉 Up to… [Image of tweet with numbers]
— KP Koalicja Obywatelska 🇵🇱✌️ (@ko_klub) January 29, 2026
Defining Forbidden Online Activities
Many may wonder about the specific offenses targeted by this new legislation. The catalog of prohibited activities includes:
- Animal abuse;
- Violation of bodily integrity;
- Humiliation;
- Direct threats to someone’s sexuality, health, or life;
- Simulating any of the above-mentioned actions.
This draft legislation is set to undergo public consultations, followed by review from experts who will assess its assumptions and propose any necessary amendments. These amendments may be critical, considering that certain activities are excluded from liability: artistic, educational, collecting, and scientific endeavors. This exclusion poses a significant risk: there’s a possibility that creators engaging in pathological behavior could attempt to justify their actions by claiming to be conducting an educational campaign or a scientific project.
The Illusion of Impunity for Patostreamers
To gain expert insight into the proposed regulations, we spoke with Natalia Gaweł, an attorney and intellectual property law expert from Andersen Law Firm. According to Gaweł, the solution presented by the Civic Coalition could serve as a powerful deterrent for patostreamers by clearly defining behavioral boundaries.
She notes that the current Criminal Code has certain shortcomings, which may lead some internet creators to feel immune to consequences. However, she warns that this sense of impunity is often an illusion that reality can brutally shatter.
It must be emphasized that their impunity is largely illusory. Under current legal provisions, there are numerous regulations that allow for a response to many behaviors presented in patostreams and protect the same legal interests—including life and health, freedom, human dignity, public order, and morality.
— Natalia Gaweł, Attorney at Andersen Law Firm
Gaweł further elaborates: “Depending on the specific factual circumstances, provisions concerning criminal threats, abuse, violation of bodily integrity, coercion to specific behavior, defamation or insult, incitement or glorification of a crime, and dissemination of pornographic content may apply.”
Gaweł also points out that difficulties in combating patostreaming primarily stem from insufficient utilization of existing legal instruments. She believes it’s currently difficult to definitively state whether the amendment of the Criminal Code with a new article will significantly reduce patostreaming.
However, she highlights that similar regulations exist in countries like Germany, New Zealand, and Hungary, where patostreaming is not as prevalent as it is in Poland. “One can therefore assume that a clear and unambiguous normative basis can have a preventive effect and contribute to limiting the escalation of the most drastic content online,” she concludes.
Online Actions to Avoid: Expert Clarification
While we often assume our online actions are lawful, some behaviors can constitute prohibited acts. This primarily concerns various forms of defamation (defined in Article 212 of the Criminal Code) and insult (Article 214 of the Criminal Code). Among the most common examples are:
- Sharing altered photos of another person;
- Creating satirical profiles designed to ridicule someone;
- Posting offensive comments under online content;
- Publishing false information about someone on social media.
Another harmful and punishable act committed by some internet users is stalking (defined in Article 190a of the Criminal Code). This manifests through actions such as:
- Regularly sending unwanted messages (e.g., via instant messengers);
- Persistent monitoring of someone’s activity (e.g., by posting comments);
- Regular attempts to initiate contact despite the other party’s clear reluctance.
Less frequently, but still occurring, are instances of hacking into someone’s social media profiles or electronic mailboxes. This offense is defined in Article 267 of the Criminal Code. Beyond merely breaking a password, seizing someone else’s correspondence also constitutes a crime.
A Future Perspective: Accountability for Online Misconduct
Considering the planned changes in Polish law, the statement in this article’s title—”Online Stupidity Can Be Costly: Not Just for Patostreamers”—is certainly proving true. The excuses of patostreamers and others engaged in harmful online activities appear to be merely short-sighted thinking.
This line of reasoning will most likely be quickly refuted by the justice system. It’s important to note, however, that even with some legal loopholes, not every patostreamer has managed to evade accountability.
A notable example is “Kawiaq,” who gained notoriety in 2023 when, during one live stream, he deployed pepper spray at random passersby, and in another, abused an intoxicated woman.
[Image of tweet related to Kawiaq]
— Mikołaj Tylko (@konopskyy) November 27, 2023
After the incident gained public attention, the streamer and his associate temporarily fled abroad, hoping to escape responsibility. However, their short-lived “paradise” ended shortly after their return to Poland, and the duo was apprehended. Their trial is currently ongoing before the District Court in Bytom.
This situation clearly demonstrated that there is a boundary in the internet (and beyond) that must not be crossed. The new regulations aim not only to prevent this boundary from shifting further but also to encompass other questionable acts, ensuring greater accountability for online misconduct.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is “patostreaming”?
Patostreaming refers to live broadcasts, often on platforms like YouTube or Twitch, featuring content that is abusive, vulgar, illegal, or otherwise disturbing. This can include anything from public harassment and violence to humiliation and consumption of alcohol or drugs, often performed for monetary gain through donations.
What new regulations are being proposed in Poland?
The Civic Coalition in Poland has proposed amendments to Article 255b of the Criminal Code. These changes aim to criminalize the online dissemination of content documenting forbidden acts, such as animal abuse, physical assault, humiliation, and direct threats to life or health. Penalties could range from three months to five years in prison.
Who will be affected by these new laws?
The regulations will primarily affect creators of “patostreams” and individuals illegally promoting gambling online. However, they also set broader boundaries for all internet users, warning against actions like defamation, insult, cyberstalking, and unauthorized access to digital accounts, which can carry severe legal consequences.
Are there any exceptions to the new regulations?
The proposed law includes exceptions for artistic, educational, collecting, and scientific activities. However, experts express concern that these exclusions could be exploited by creators attempting to justify pathological behaviors under the guise of legitimate activities.
What is the “illusion of impunity” for patostreamers?
The “illusion of impunity” refers to the false belief among some online content creators that they can commit harmful or illegal acts during live streams without facing legal repercussions. While specific laws against “patostreaming” may be new, existing legal provisions already allow authorities to prosecute many of the behaviors seen in these streams, such as threats, assault, defamation, and incitement to crime.
Source: Original article content. Opening photo: Gemini
About Post Author
