The Tamedia journalist has now been convicted of defamation in a second instance. The case is still pending at the Federal Supreme Court. Civil lawsuit over nearly 200 personality-violating book passages and profit disgorgement. The entire complex shows how a journalist who had already made reputation-damaging false claims in her reporting in 2015 was unable to acknowledge her error. Instead, she conducted a systematic campaign over years. Rather than protecting the author from herself, her employer Tamedia tasked her with a "research" project on the Landammann celebration without any new findings being available. It remains unclear to what extent the Tamedia author acts as a private individual and when as a Tamedia employee. In the proceedings against her for intentional lying and false claims, she can rely on the support of the present Tamedia legal representative.
After Ringier publicly apologized to Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin, Tamedia intervenes. On behalf of Tamedia, the Tages-Anzeiger journalist announces that she wants to revisit the "scandal night of 2014" and write a book about it. There are no new findings to justify this.
The Zug cantonal court stops the book project by preliminary protective measure. The Tages-Anzeiger journalist is prohibited from publishing texts that violate personality rights and privacy. This is not a book ban, but a prohibition against personality rights violations.
The Basel Public Prosecution issues a penal order against Binswanger for defamation: 45 daily penalty units of CHF 200 (suspended) and a fine of CHF 1,500. The basis: Binswanger published the defamatory tweet "knowing it to be false," even though the accusation of false allegations had already been conclusively disproven by law enforcement in Spiess-Hegglin's favor. Tamedia Communication Director Nicole Bänninger subsequently declares publicly that the company will appeal the judgment and submit evidence against the defamation allegation. Tamedia justifies the step by stating that the Public Prosecution did not hear the accused beforehand.
In summer 2021, 10 articles in Tamedia newspapers focus on Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin. The cause of the campaign is a "like" on Twitter to a satirical post. Die Republik subsequently describes Tamedia as a "destruction machine."
The Tages-Anzeiger journalist publishes her book in January 2023 in self-publishing, despite three pending legal proceedings. After an initial review, it becomes apparent that the book is likely highly personality-violating.
The Criminal Court Basel-Stadt confirms the lower court and increases the sentence for defamation under Art. 174 Criminal Code. During the criminal proceedings, Binswanger is shown the video of Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin's initial interrogation – the most important file from the 2014/2015 criminal proceedings. It stands in stark contrast to the thesis of her already published book. The criminal court described the defendant's behavior as "obsessive" and "dogged." An admission, insight, or remorse were not evident at any point.
The court also held that Binswanger herself was responsible for keeping the subject current through the book publication and public statements. The journalist does not accept the judgment.
The Court of Appeal Basel-Stadt confirms the conviction for defamation in the second instance. The journalist appeals the judgment further to the Federal Supreme Court.
The criminal conviction for defamation – confirmed in two instances – is now pending at the Federal Supreme Court. It is Switzerland's highest court and the final instance in this proceeding.
The Solothurn Public Prosecution fines the Tages-Anzeiger journalist by penal order for multiple defamation. The basis is an interview on Solothurn's Aktivradio in which she made false statements of fact about Spiess-Hegglin. It is already the second criminal conviction. There is a first-instance acquittal at district court. The reasoning is contradictory; Spiess-Hegglin and the Solothurn Public Prosecution appeal. The High Court judgment is pending.
A lawsuit is pending at the Basel-Stadt Civil Court over nearly 200 personality-violating passages from the self-published book. The lawsuit comprises injunction, removal, and profit disgorgement under Art. 28a Swiss Civil Code. It is the civil law parallel to the criminal proceedings.
The preliminary proceeding on the book project went to the Federal Supreme Court in 2021, which lifted the preliminary protective measure. This resulted in the ECtHR proceeding: The complaint to Strasbourg concerns the question whether the intimate sphere of a person can be declared public property simply because media have illegally disseminated it for years.
Only publicly accessible court decisions and penal orders are published.
Appeal of the convicted person at Federal Supreme Court pending.
First-instance acquittal. Appeal at High Court Solothurn pending.
Lawsuit over nearly 200 personality-violating book passages for injunction, removal, and profit disgorgement under Art. 28a Swiss Civil Code. Pending at Basel-Stadt Civil Court.
Final since December 15, 2024. Remaining claim (injunction, removal, profit disgorgement) pending at Civil Court Basel-Stadt.
The journalist claimed in advance of the book's publication that her work primarily reflected Markus Hürlimann's perspective. According to an analysis of the published text submitted in the civil proceedings, a different picture emerges: 49 percent of the book's content is devoted to Jolanda Spiess-Hegglin personally – her career, family, intimate information from hospital records, content from non-public investigation protocols. The depiction of Markus Hürlimann comprises less than 20 percent of the total volume. The book is – contrary to its announcement – not a portrait of an affected person, but a 200-page engagement with the plaintiff.
The criminal connection is direct: The tweet for which the journalist was convicted of defamation on May 23, 2023, is substantively the core of the book – the book expands the same accusation over 200 pages. The journalist maintained her basic thesis publicly on the day of her conviction and repeated it a few days later in a video interview. The Criminal Court Basel-Stadt described her behavior throughout the criminal proceedings as "obsessive" and "dogged"; an admission, insight, or remorse were not evident at any point.
Zentralplus wrote in February 2023: "This is the project's greatest weakness. In the book about the Landammann celebration, Michèle Binswanger does exactly what she accuses Spiess-Hegglin of doing to Markus Hürlimann: She publicly disseminates that the former cantonal councilor might have committed a crime by wrongfully accusing the former SVP president. [...] Because in court: Innocent until proven guilty. And this book tramples that principle underfoot."
Among the consulted sources named in the book is at least one stalker who has been obligated by a final court decision for years not to make any statements about the plaintiff to third parties – and especially not to journalists. The same stalker was convicted several times during this period in criminal and civil proceedings and charged in further proceedings, all in connection with the plaintiff. That a journalist claiming to be serious would consult such a compromised source and quote it in a book raises fundamental questions about journalistic due diligence – and is documented.
The conviction under Art. 174 Criminal Code – defamation, that is, the dissemination of false statements of fact knowing them to be false – was confirmed by the Court of Appeal Basel-Stadt and is now pending at the Federal Supreme Court. The court found that the journalist pursued the private plaintiff "obsessively" and "doggedly" and maintained her claims despite knowing of contradictory file evidence. The defamatory tweet from 2020, the book publication from 2023, and the interview statements from 2024 form not a sequence of isolated incidents, but a chain. The book was published in January 2023, after the Basel Public Prosecution had already legally characterized the defamation of the tweet in its penal order of July 2021. The interview statements from 2024 followed the first-instance conviction by the Criminal Court Basel-Stadt – and occurred despite pending criminal proceedings.
A central pattern of this complex is the systematic reversal of roles. The journalist convicted of defamation in two instances – the judgment is not yet final since the appeal is pending at the Federal Supreme Court – is styled as a fighter for media freedom, the actual victim as a persecutor. The Court of Appeal Basel-Stadt explicitly held that media freedom does not protect the making of false statements. The framing as a question of "press freedom" is substantively untenable – these are demonstrably false statements of fact that were disseminated knowing them to be false. That this reversal continues to shape the public narrative today shows the structural power of media framing.
The journalist did not act alone. Tamedia Chief Editor Arthur Rutishauser made public statements in two interviews. In the first interview on persoenlich.com, September 2020 – immediately after the Zug cantonal court's preliminary protective measure – Rutishauser declared: "Tamedia has taken on the defense of Michèle Binswanger." He justified this by saying that "we as a newsroom are also affected by the publication ban." And he made clear: "Ultimately, a research project for Tamedia newspapers leads, thanks to personal initiative, to a book by Michèle Binswanger about the case." In the second interview in Schweizer Journalist, April 2021 – after the High Court judgment – he confirmed: "Almost two years ago, Michèle Binswanger began research on behalf of Tamedia into the events surrounding the Zug Landammann celebration of 2014." When asked whether Tamedia was prepared to defend this research: "It goes beyond the book. It's about free journalism. And as a media company, we stand up for that." And he assured: "We will not publish anything that violates personality rights." The book was published in January 2023. The Criminal Court Basel-Stadt convicted the author of defamation in May 2023; the Court of Appeal Basel-Stadt confirmed the conviction in June 2025.
When the Basel Public Prosecution issued the first penal order for defamation in July 2021, Tamedia Communication Director Nicole Bänninger declared publicly that the company would appeal the judgment and submit evidence. Tamedia thereby officially took responsibility for criminal proceedings over a private tweet by its employee.
The Tamedia chief editor and the head of the legal department are expressly mentioned by name in the book's acknowledgments for their "great personal commitment to this research and press freedom." Company lawyer Matthias Seemann accompanied Binswanger personally to court hearings – documentedly twice in Basel and once in Solothurn. That Tamedia bears the costs of its employee's legal dispute is documented in the book "Most Clicked" (Limmat Verlag, 2024) firsthand: "In 2022, the employee's supervisor confirmed to me in front of multiple witnesses that Tamedia covers all legal costs for its employee, both for proceedings related to the written book and for the defamation cases that originate from a privately expressed tweet by the journalist." The cost coverage by Tamedia thus applies not only to the civil proceedings but also to the criminal proceedings – including those arising from the employee's private tweet. The question arises of management liability under Art. 754 Swiss Code of Obligations: Whether a media company that actively supports an employee over years, who has been convicted of defamation in two instances, is itself liable.
The civil lawsuit over nearly 200 personality-violating book passages is comparable in scale to the Ringier case. It comprises injunction, removal, and profit disgorgement under Art. 28a Swiss Civil Code. The case shows that the legal processing of media personality rights violations is not a singular event but structurally addresses the point where media companies systematically profit from unlawful conduct. That a single individual is forced to conduct this processing simultaneously on four legal levels – in criminal, civil, and federal court proceedings as well as before the ECtHR – and faces a journalist who is apparently fully financed and legally accompanied by a media company, makes the asymmetry between individual personality rights and corporation-backed media power visible. That a single complex spans cantonal criminal law, Federal Supreme Court, civil law, and European human rights is extraordinary in Swiss legal history.
The Tamedia/Binswanger complex and the cyberharassment proceedings are structurally inseparable. The behaviors of the convicted perpetrators as established in the judgment of the District Court Pfäffikon – systematic acquisition, dissemination, and exploitation of material against the plaintiff – took place in a media environment shaped by the Tamedia campaign of the preceding years. That a media company actively protects and finances a journalist for years, while simultaneously a coordinated digital attack campaign runs against the same person, is not a coincidence that explains itself.
The connection is documented at one concrete point: Legal briefs from the ongoing Binswanger proceedings – at that time accessible only to the parties and the involved courts – appeared on a blog operated by the convicted stalkers, furnished with inside knowledge about individual procedural steps and contents. In her reply in the civil proceedings, naming all involved parties, the plaintiff contends that, excluding the court, the plaintiff, her attorney, and the defendant's attorney, the defendant herself is the only plausible source of this disclosure. Both complexes are treated separately in court – structurally they form a documented point of contact.
A further point of contact concerns the so-called "Hateleaks": In May 2023 – immediately before her conviction for defamation – journalist Michele Binswanger published parts of this chat under the title "Hateleaks" on a blog she created for this purpose. The publication served to reverse the narrative: Spiess-Hegglin was to be portrayed as the instigator of a smear campaign, the Tagi journalist – convicted of intentional lying and knowing false statements (not final) – as victim. This framing was adopted by various media – including from the Tamedia company itself.
The facts tell a different story. The only truly hateful statements in the chat, which was not at all conceived as a hate group against the Tamedia journalist, did not come from Spiess-Hegglin but from two women who later turned out to be close confidants of the journalist – they were present at her appeal hearing in Basel as companions. These same women had previously been excluded from the association #NetzCourage for actions contrary to the association's purpose. They are and were also in contact with the convicted stalkers. Whether deliberate provocation from within occurred here to generate usable material against Spiess-Hegglin cannot be conclusively proven – the pattern suggests it.
The complex reveals a dynamic that extends beyond the individual case. The Swiss media industry has a collective financial interest in not seeing the precedent of profit disgorgement in the Ringier case extended to further media companies. That Tamedia tasked its journalist with the book project precisely after the Ringier apology raises the question of whether journalistic interest or defense of a business model was guiding the decision. Hansi Voigt, founder of Watson, characterized the industry silence as early as May 2021 in an open letter in Schweizer Journalist as "omertà": "But the entire journalism profession has been silent for years. Some remain silent embarrassedly, others in a kind of omertà." In the same letter, Voigt posed the question that remains unanswered to this day: "Who at Tamedia must ultimately take responsibility? The question also goes to all board members at Tamedia."