The Judiciary was always in the center of media discussions, not only at present and not only in our legal system. In this work we try to synthetize the situations when the Judiciary is criticized from a negative point of view, by spreading information that does not correspond to the reality. The facts are appreciated through two main directions: first of all, freedom of expression is recognized to all the people by international and national standards, and judges, as public figures, must accept social critic; secondly, freedom of expression is not an absolute right and every legal system may impose limits to the use of the mentioned right. The key-idea of the paper is that the Judiciary in general and judges as individuals have to accept the reality of being publicly criticized; but, at the same time, national normative acts have to guarantee their protection against intimidation, harassment, influence, pressure, by overcoming the freedom of expression limits by third parties. We argue that the national Superior Council of Magistracy and the Judicial Inspection, as a subordinated body of the first one mentioned, are the more advisable institutions to involve in defending the professional reputation, the honor and dignity of judges and the independence and image of the Judiciary against unjustified criticism. Recognizing these competences to the named institutions, by express reference in the text of national law, would correspond to the requirements of an independent and consolidated Justice.