Here's an attempt to summarise the ethics arguments/counterarguments for/against giving an answer:
4 (utilitarian argument) the "politically correct" side of axel springer (newsweek) is much more likely to be taken seriously and have an effect on CAUMK funding (e.g. grants) than RM would have (though this is not totally sure)
OK, but how can you make sure Axel Springer will NOT reprint your opinion in Fakt??? If you talk to them you then - AFAIK - _they_ own the copyright to distribute your opinions in the way *they* wish. Can you image the 1st page of Fakt with headlines "The Universe is a funnel" next to "This is the face of a rapist. She says she will never forget it" (or any other rubbish like that)? I can.
So if you decide to reply to Mr. Rożek then before you actually reply to his questions ask him who are you talking to: Newsweek or Axel Springer? If the latter is the case then there *is* a danger your words may be misused. If the former is the case then ask whether you can get PROTECTED (in writing!) that your words will NOT appear in Fakt, Popcorn, Dziwczyna or any other pitiful, bull...tting crap owned by Axel Springer. Having a document stating that Axel Springer _limits_ their copyrights, you perhaps may start talking to them. Then if your words/photo appears in Fakt anyway, you could try to sue them.
1 our answer provides a "legitimate" cover for an organisation which as a whole plays many negative roles in information distribution
"Yes, yes, yes." (I put quotes because I'm quoting... Prime Minister Marcinkiewicz here. ;-)
Is this a fair summary of the arguments?
Yes.
-- am