Marija Vasic Files Criminal Complaint Against Milos Vucevic

Suspended sociology professor Marija Vasic has announced that on Wednesday, June 3, she will file a criminal complaint against the leader of the Serbian Progressive Party, Milos Vucevic, over threats to her safety. The complaint follows what she describes as an organised online pile-on and a series of insulting graffiti that appeared outside her building in the Liman district of Novi Sad.

The dispute began with Vasic’s appearance on the show Utisak nedelje, where she used the academic term fetishism, drawn from the sociology of religion, to describe the act of kissing the Belt of the Mother of God. Vucevic then took to his Instagram account, calling her remark alarming and accusing her of indoctrinating young people against Serbian faith and tradition.

What happened after the post

After the SNS leader’s post, the professor says a coordinated campaign against her took off on social media. Shortly afterward, six identical insulting graffiti appeared outside her building. According to her, the graffiti were removed by local residents, and she reported the case to the police.

Vasic argues it is no coincidence that an attack that began online spilled onto the street, right outside her front door, within roughly the same day. The sequence of events, as she describes it, runs as follows:

• her appearance on the show and the academic comment on fetishism in religion
• Vucevic’s Instagram post and accusations of indoctrination
• a wave of insults and threats on social media
• six identical graffiti outside her building in Liman
• the report to police and the announced criminal complaint

I am filing a complaint against a person who holds significant political power and control over the media, because I believe it was precisely that post that set off the avalanche that endangered my safety, Vasic said in explaining her decision.

Why is the complaint aimed at Vucevic?

The professor stresses that she is not directing the complaint at the anonymous authors of the graffiti or the comments, but at the man who, in her view, set the whole chain of events in motion. The argument is simple: the person with the most political power and the greatest influence over the media bears the greatest responsibility for the consequences of their public statements.

Vucevic had not responded to the announced complaint by the time of writing. It also remains open how the prosecution will treat the link between a single social media post and the later graffiti, since the entire case rests on that very connection.

The case raises a broader debate about the line between public criticism and incitement to a pile-on, particularly when the criticism comes from a holder of high political office. Where, in your view, does legitimate political reaction end and a threat to an individual’s safety begin?