Němeček's broadcast (after which he was fired) has caused quite a reaction.

In it, thunder and lightning rain down on the heads of the Czech Radio, its council and the broadcasting council from Constitutional Court chairman Pavel Rychetský himself. The station tries to stand up against the storm, but then its councilmember, Milan Uhde, says that to express concern is tolerable but not in a mocking and untrue form.

A 19th-century Russian censor spoke in a similar way when he banned Gogol's Dead Souls. Flexible public media chiefs need to be told nothing more. Czech Radio director Václav Kasík has humbled himself. Němeček's public radio days are over and the editor that broadcast his comment is leaving the station also.

Case closed? Not really. Czech politicians' efforts to limit media freedom continue. The illness is in fact very contagious and the Constitutional Court chairman is among the ill. And it is an illness with a past. Way back in the early 1990s, then culture minister Milan Uhde pushed the head of the Czech daily Lidové noviny to sack editor Mirka Spáčilová because he didn't like her writing. He pushed without success.

Czech Television later fired discussion program host Roman Prorok, who was disliked by Václav Klaus. Former minister Jan Kavan complained to Právo that he doesn't like the writing of one of the editors. Without result. Only recently Czech Television cancelled its Sunday political summary of the week program Bez obalu ("Saying It Straight") and faced suspicion that it wanted to please Prime Minister Jiří Paroubek, who's been critical of the show.

The character of public media heads is about what you'd expect from those who fear not being re-appointed. However, that's no way to go. Freedom of the press is the most fundamental freedom of all.

If Pavel Rychetský questioned the quality of Tomáš Němeček's radio comment, he should have turned to the courts. Perhaps he knew he would lose in court and therefore decided for a less dignified reaction. There was very little I personally would agree with in Němeček's comment but I will always defend his right to speak with irony of the Constitutional Court, Hanák writes.

David Rath is a good teacher, one who showed healthcare employees how to speak out and defend their interests with demonstrations and strikes. He was the one who "beheaded" health ministers, but now his talented pupils turn against their "master," Jana Bendová writes in Mladá fronta Dnes Feb. 3.

In reaction to recent the pharmacists' strike, Rath said rather maliciously that the protesters are yet to do better than he did because he managed to bring 15,000 protesters to the streets and his opponents have not achieved this.

On Feb. 24, however, doctors, pharmacists, hospital workers and perhaps even patient advocacy groups have a chance to change this and turn out in even higher numbers. Let us wait and see what Rath will have to say then.

As a good teacher he should be satisfied. Still, his pupils will only pass the final test once they are as able and skilled at lopping off a health minister's head, Bendová writes.