By Kritonas Kapsalis
decision by journalist and researcher Makarios Drousiotis to seek financial support from the public has sparked in Cyprus a debate that has been taking place abroad for years: who pays the cost when an independent journalist becomes entangled in expensive legal proceedings arising from, or connected to, their journalistic and investigative work?
The model is internationally known as donation-based crowdfunding.
Instead of relying exclusively on a publishing organisation, a foundation or a major financial backer, journalists appeal directly to readers and supporters. Numerous small contributions, and occasionally larger ones, create a fund that can be used to cover legal fees, court costs and other expenses associated with defending and continuing investigative work.
Multiple legal fronts
In Drousiotis' case, the initiative carries additional significance because of the number of legal matters in which he is involved.
For several years, the journalist has been at the centre of intense disputes arising largely from books he published concerning corruption and the functioning of institutions.
Among other cases, he faces a lawsuit filed by former President Nicos Anastasiades, who is seeking exemplary damages exceeding €2 million over claims contained in the books Mafia State and The Gang, as well as in a related publication.
The lawsuit also seeks a court order preventing the repetition or republication of the disputed content.
Drousiotis has described the action as an attempt at intimidation and has said he is prepared to contest the matter before the courts.
At the same time, four cybercrime officers initiated defamation proceedings against him in a case also linked to his publications and allegations.
The situation became even more complex in 2026.
In April, Drousiotis and his lawyer visited Police Headquarters and submitted evidence relating to serious allegations he had publicised. Leaving the building, he limited his comments to the phrase "the die is cast", describing the development as "the beginning of a long process".
At the end of July, a criminal dimension was added when Drousiotis appeared before an Assize Court in what has become known as the Santi case.
Together, these proceedings create a substantial financial burden for an individual journalist.
And that is precisely where crowdfunding becomes relevant.
Not only Drousiotis
Public fundraising for journalists' legal defence is neither new nor unique to Cyprus.
One example is independent American journalist Mark O'Donnell.
After facing a multi-million-dollar lawsuit connected to his reporting and legal costs exceeding $100,000, he launched a GoFundMe campaign in May 2025 with a target of $150,000.
According to the latest figures cited by the platform, the campaign had raised $38,147 through 506 donations.
O'Donnell said the funds were being used to pay legal fees, depositions, legal submissions and other litigation-related expenses.
The logic behind such campaigns is straightforward: an independent journalist often lacks the financial resources available to the organisation or individual on the opposing side and asks those who value the work to contribute to the cost of the defence.
$175,000 for Millie Weaver
A similar case involved American independent journalist Millie Weaver.
Following her arrest in 2020, a legal defence fund was created through GoFundMe.
The campaign ultimately raised C$175,651 through approximately 3,400 donations.
Organisers stated from the outset that the funds would be used for legal representation and related costs.
Regardless of the merits of any individual case, the example illustrates how effectively direct public funding can work once a journalist's situation receives wider publicity.
A recent 2026 example
An even more contemporary example involves American investigative journalist and podcaster Mandy Matney, known for reporting on the high-profile Murdaugh case.
In July 2026, a South Carolina court found her in civil contempt after she failed to comply with a subpoena for testimony.
Matney strongly disputes the court's treatment of the matter and has cited safety concerns among her arguments. The court rejected that justification.
As a result, the case differs significantly from a classic SLAPP case and should be viewed with that distinction in mind.
The financial consequences, however, were considerable.
Legal fees and costs reportedly reached $171,500, while the court imposed a $5,000 fine.
Her organisation, LUNASHARK Media, launched a crowdfunding campaign seeking at least $176,500, plus any potential appeal expenses.
The example is noteworthy because it is unfolding now, in 2026, demonstrating that journalists turning directly to the public for help with substantial legal costs remains a current phenomenon.
Beyond journalism
The model extends beyond journalism itself.
Whistleblower Aid established a crowdfunding campaign to support intelligence-community whistleblowers, specifically to finance their legal representation.
The campaign raised $284,427 from approximately 6,200 donations, against a target of $350,000.
The principle is similar to that behind fundraising campaigns for journalists: when someone claims to be exposing information in the public interest while facing a significantly more powerful financial opponent, part of society chooses to support that person's ability to continue the legal battle.
From crowdfunding to defence funds
The phenomenon has now become institutionalised in some areas.
The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), one of the world's leading investigative journalism networks, created OCCRP SLAPPs Back, an internal legal defence fund.
The initiative was prompted by 41 lawsuits faced by journalists and media organisations linked to the network.
OCCRP argues that such lawsuits can function as tools for the financial exhaustion and intimidation of journalists and small independent media outlets.
The crowdfunding campaign initially sought $100,000, ultimately raising $117,160 through 362 donations.
The next step was even larger.
In partnership with the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, OCCRP launched Reporters Shield, a programme designed to provide legal protection to investigative news organisations facing abusive litigation.
The programme launched with initial funding of $9 million.
The broader issue
Behind all these examples lies a wider concern.
A legal case does not need to end in a journalist's conviction to have serious consequences.
The process itself can involve years of court appearances, lawyers, expert witnesses, investigations and costs running into tens or even hundreds of thousands of euros.
This issue sits at the heart of the international discussion surrounding SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), legal actions that aim or result in the financial and psychological pressure of journalists, activists and others participating in public debate.
That does not mean every lawsuit against a journalist constitutes a SLAPP.
Plaintiffs have the right to seek legal remedy through the courts, and journalists remain subject to defamation laws and other legal obligations.
The problem arises when the significant financial imbalance between two sides effectively turns the legal process itself into a form of pressure.
OCCRP describes precisely this imbalance: on one side wealthy businesspeople, powerful political figures or other actors with access to expensive legal services; on the other, small media organisations and independent journalists with limited resources.
The significance of the Drousiotis case
Viewed through that lens, Drousiotis' initiative takes on broader significance.
It is not simply an online fundraising drive.
Rather, it represents the arrival in Cyprus of a model already established internationally, whereby a journalist appeals directly to citizens for financial support to withstand a lengthy legal battle.
There is, of course, another side to the issue.
Financial support from the public does not prove that a journalist's claims are correct, nor does it predetermine the outcome of any civil or criminal proceedings.
Those matters are decided by the courts and competent authorities.
A donation expresses something different: a citizen's view that a journalist's right to present their case and defend their work is important enough to justify contributing financially.
Perhaps that is the most important aspect of the Drousiotis case.
In a small country where investigative journalism operates with limited financial resources and legal disputes can become lengthy and extremely costly, a new question is emerging:
Can the public itself act as a financial safety net for a journalist facing the cost of investigations and legal battles?
International experience suggests that it can.
Whether that model will take root in Cyprus remains to be seen, but the case of Makarios Drousiotis may become its first major test, a test that has already begun following the state's move to investigate him for an alleged breach of fundraising legislation.
