Lithuanian journalist Gintaras Visockas is no stranger to covering controversial topics. A long-time journalist and author, Visockas covered the Lithuanian Defense Ministry and NATO operations for almost five years for the newspaper Vastieciu Laikrastis.

“During this time, I had conducted hundreds of interviews with Lithuanian and foreign generals,” Visockas told IPI in a recent interview. “I also conducted various journalistic investigations on subjects such as the pranks indulged by enlisted soldiers, the real and imagined sins of officers on corruption in the military, on arming the military with inappropriate weaponry, and about the unwillingness of young men to serve in the Lithuanian army.”

Despite covering all these potentially delicate issues, Visockas never encountered a problem with military officials or the Lithuanian government. Unfortunately, that changed drastically in 2009.
At the time, Lithuanian politics were in a period of transition. A recently installed Leftist government had taken power and presidential elections were to follow. Visockas’ career had also undergone important changes: the funding that supported his reporting for Vastieciu Laikrastis had been stopped, so he decided to go into his own freelance business, creating the online news website www.slaptai.lt.

As the race for the 2009 Lithuanian presidential election began, Visockas became interested in one particular candidate: retired general Česlovas Jezerskas.

“As all the advance polls had indicated that [Jezerskas] had no chance of winning (as all the later polls indicated and the final election results confirmed), this raised my curiosity as to why he was actually participating in this election, or rather from whom did he attempt to take away votes,” Visockas said.

Visockas published an article on his website in which he wrote that, during Soviet rule in Lithuania, athletes in combat sports had been under the control of the KGB. The general, a former wrestling champion, felt offended by the article and brought criminal defamation charges against Visockas. Visockas was then put on trial.

He recounted: “I was brought into a court where murderers, recidivists, and rapists were being tried. This I find hard to understand. How can a journalist be tried in the same court? Can journalistic activity be compared with murderers?”

The trial severely impacted Visockas’ health and ability to work.

“The various problems connected with this case were still very large,” he said. “For two years, I was neither cleared nor convicted. Although the consideration of my case in court did not stop my journalistic activity, it was still very hard for me, continue with litigation, prepare for court and at the same time to conduct investigative journalism if only to secure sufficient income for my own upkeep, but also for the payment of attorney’s expenses.”

Visockas was convicted of criminal slander and defamation and ordered to pay Jezerskas 50,000 litas (approx. €14,000) in compensation. He was also sentenced to pay a further sum in court and bailiff fees. His monthly income at the time was around 2,000litas.

Usually, under Lithuanian law, convicted offenders would be allowed to replace the court fees with a prison sentence of an established length. That appealed to Visockas, who said he had previously worked as a gardener in England and a night postman in Denmark in order to underwrite his journalistic career.
“I had calculated that I could cover at least the court’s expenses by serving a term of about 40 days in jail,” he said. “This would have greatly lightened my financial burden. But it was unofficially explained to me that this ‘privilege’ would not be extended [to] me as the court did not have any wish to lighten my financial burden. It would be better for them that I would be forced into bankruptcy. They also did not want that by sitting in jail, I would attract additional attention from the Lithuanian populace. The government, including the judges, did not want any additional noise or attention and criticism from any foreign international organizations.”

Several years later, Visockas continues to pay down his financial obligations in small amounts each month on top of paying a portion of the fees for the defense lawyer he hired.

“I really do not think that the Lithuanian court treated me fairly,” he said. “I was actually found guilty not for anything that I had written concretely, but only for that which a statistical average citizen could have thought that my article had meant to say.”

According to Visockas, the conviction has done more than saddle him with a serious financial burden: it has also impeded his ability to work. Visockas told IPI that it is now very difficult to attend conferences outside of Lithuania or apply for visas because he has a criminal conviction on his record.

The conviction has also affected him personally as a journalist.

“It helps very much that I have my own Internet newspaper,” he said. “I am not only its owner, but also its editor. Thus no one can prohibit me from writing in it or fire me from it. However, after this event, I am much more prone to self-censorship. The irony is that as soon as I start writing about any controversial theme, I immediately remember Judge V. Peskevicius’ verdict and how will the article be understood by the statistically average reader.”

Visockas said he believes that the conviction follows a very dangerous model that allows for government’s control over journalists.

“A conviction for slander and defamation is for me a great burden,” he explained. “It is also a very effective means of controlling journalists who refuse to accept the official government versions on the events that we have written about. It is also an excellent way of frightening journalists in order to not question the positions taken by the government, its various agencies or the courts. Thus if you voice an opinion that is contrary to that held by the Lithuanian government or its courts, this can mean that you have slandered them.”

When asked if he had any advice for other journalists who may find themselves in a similar situation, he said: “Never forget that you will have to depend on solely your own capabilities. There is no solidarity among Lithuanian journalists.”

Visockas continues to report on Lithuanian politics today. He publishes exclusively on his news site and refuses to stop, even after the trial. “Despite all my problems, I refuse to be pushed out of writing about controversial and complex themes,” he said.

*Note: This article is part of a series of “Notes from the Field: EU Defamation Laws and Journalism”, in which the International Press Institute (IPI) takes a closer look at the application of defamation law in EU member countries, seeking to illustrate the practical consequences of these laws upon both individual journalists and the free flow of information necessary for democratic governance. The country-specific articles here also include the results of IPI’s research into the respective national defamation law. This series complements IPI’s ongoing research, advocacy and capacity-building work on defamation in the EU.

OCTOBER 18, 2014 EURASIA REVIEW LEAVE A COMMENT

Information – from www.eurasiareview.com

2014.11.07; 04:33

This article is part of our series „Notes from the Field: EU Defamation Laws and Journalism, in which the International Press Institute (IPI) takes a closer look at the application of defamation law in EU countries, seeking to illustrate the practical consequences of these laws upon both individual journalists and the free flow of information necessary for democratic governance. The country-specific articles here also include the results of IPI’s research into the respective national defamation law. This series complements IPI’s ongoing research, advocacy and capacity-building work on defamation in the EU, which you can read more about here.

visockas_175Lithuanian journalist Gintaras Visockas is no stranger to covering controversial topics. A long-time journalist and author, Visockas covered the Lithuanian Defence Ministry and NATO operations for almost five years for the newspaper Vastieciu Laikrastis.

“During this time, I had conducted hundreds of interviews with Lithuanian and foreign generals,” Visockas told IPI in a recent email interview. “I also conducted various journalistic investigations on subjects such as the pranks indulged in by enlisted soldiers, the real and imagined sins of officers on corruption in the military, on arming the military with inappropriate weaponry, and on the unwillingness of younger men to serve in the Lithuanian army.”

Despite covering all these potentially delicate issues, Visockas never encountered a problem with military officials or the Lithuanian government. That changed drastically in 2009.

At the time, Lithuanian politics were in a period of transition. A new, leftist government had taken power and presidential elections were to follow. Visockas’ career had also undergone important changes: the funding that supported his reporting for Vastieciu Laikrastis had been stopped, so he decided to go into business for himself, creating the online news site www.slaptai.lt.

As the race for the 2009 Lithuanian presidential election began, Visockas became interested in one particular candidate: retired general Česlovas Jezerskas.

“As all the advance polls had indicated that [Jezerskas] had no chance of winning (as all the later polls indicated and final election results confirmed), this raised my curiosity as to why he was actually participating in this election, or rather from whom was he attempting to take away votes,” Visockas said.

Visockas published an article on his website in which he wrote that, during Soviet rule in Lithuania, athletes in combat sports had been under the control of the KGB. The general, a former wrestling champion, felt offended by the article and brought criminal defamation charges against Visockas.

Visockas was then put on trial.

He recounted: “I was brought in to a court where murderers, recidivists, and rapists were being tried. This I find hard to understand. How can a journalist be tried in the same court? Can journalistic activity be compared with murders?”

The trial severely impacted Visockas’ ability to work.

“The various problems connected with this case were still very large,” he said. “For two years, I was neither cleared nor convicted. Although the consideration of my case in court did not stop my journalistic activity, it still was hard to at the same time litigate, prepare for court and at the same time to conduct investigative journalism if only to secure sufficient income for my own upkeep, but also for the payment of attorney expenses.”

Visockas was convicted of criminal slander and defamation and ordered to pay Jezerskas 50,000 litas (approx. €14,000) in compensation. He was also sentenced to pay a further sum in court and bailiff fees. His monthly income at the time was around 2,000 litas.

Usually, under Lithuanian law, convicted offenders would be allowed to replace the court fees with a prison sentence of an established length. That appealed to Visockas, who said he had previously worked as a gardener in England and a night postman in Denmark in order to underwrite his journalistic career

“I had calculated that I could cover at least the court’s expenses by serving a term of about 40 days in jail,” he said. “This would have greatly lightened my financial burden. But it was unofficially explained to me that this ‘privilege’ would not be extended [to] me as the court did not have any wish to lighten my financial burden. It would be better for them that I would be forced into bankruptcy. They also did not want that by sitting in jail, I would attract additional attention from the Lithuanian populace. The government, including the judges, did not want any additional noise or attention and criticism from any foreign international organizations.”

Several years later, Visockas continues to pay down his financial obligations in small amounts each month on top of paying a portion of the fees for the defence lawyer he hired.

“I really do not think that the Lithuanian court treated me fairly,” he said. “I was actually found guilty not for anything that I had written concretely, but only for that which a statistical average citizen could have thought that my article had meant to say.”

According to Visockas, the conviction has done more than saddle him with a serious financial burden: it has also impeded his ability to work. Visockas told IPI that it is now very difficult to attend conferences outside of Lithuania or apply for visas because he has a criminal conviction on his record.

The conviction has also affected him personally as a journalist.

“It helps very much that I have my own Internet newspaper,” he said. “I am not only its owner, but also its editor. Thus no one can prohibit me from writing in it or fire me from it. However, after this event, I am much more prone to self-censorship. The irony is that as soon as I start writing about any controversial theme, I immediately remember Judge V. Peskevicius’ verdict and how will the article be understood by the statistically average reader.”

Visockas said he believes that the conviction follows a very dangerous model that allows for government control over journalists.

“A conviction for slander and defamation is for me a great burden,” he explained. “It is also a very effective means of controlling journalists who refuse to accept the official government versions of the events written about. It is also an excellent way of frightening journalists into not questioning the positions taken by the government, its various agencies or the courts. Thus if you voice an opinion that is contrary to that held by the Lithuanian government or its courts, this can mean that you have slandered them.”

When asked if he had any advice for other journalists who may find themselves in a similar situation, he said: “Never forget that you will have to depend on solely your own capabilities. There is no solidarity among Lithuanian journalists.”

Visockas continues to report on Lithuanian politics today. He publishes exclusively on his news site and refuses to stop, even after the trial.

“Despite all my problems, I refuse to be pushed out of writing about controversial and complex themes,” he said.

Slaptai.lt editor Gintaras Visockas (photo courtesy Gintaras Visockas).

www.freemedia.at

http://www.freemedia.at/newssview/article/in-lithuania-journalist-faces-lingering-consequences-of-criminal-libel-conviction.html

2014.08.21: 06:45

XXX

                                   LITHUANIA AND DEFAMATION: 10 THINGS TO KNOW

1. Defamation is a criminal offence in Lithuania under Arts. 154 (libel) and 155 (insult) of the Criminal Code.

2. Both libel and insult can be punished with up to one year in prison.

3. No defences for libel or insult are provided in the Criminal Code.

4. In Lithuania, libel is defined as “spreading false information about a person” that humiliates a person or subjects him or her to contempt or mistrust. Usually, a statement can be considered libel if it contains information “objective” enough to be verified. Insult generally refers to expressions that humiliate a person in an abusive manner.

5. Insulting a civil servant or other public employee in connection to that person’s official duties is punishable with up to two years in prison (Criminal Code Art. 290).

6. Lithuanian administrative law has a special provision punishing defamation of the president with a fine.

8. Civil damages for defamation can be sought under Art. 2.24 of the Lithuanian Civil Code. This provision offers defences of truth and good faith. There is also an expansive list of privileged statements, including coverage of official bodies or public meetings, live transmissions and statements presented in the form of an opinion or evaluation.

9. There are no legal limits on the amount of compensation for pain and suffering (non-pecuniary damage) that can be awarded.

10. The Lithuanian Supreme Court often cites the European Court of Human Rights in its judgments and has set some important standards, including:

i. Less severe measures, such as going to civil court, should be exhausted before turning to criminal courts to resolve defamation complaints (See 24 Apr. 2012, No. 2A-3/2012)

ii. Statements of fact are to be separated from value judgments, and there can generally be no criminal responsibility for opinions (See 2 Apr. 2013 No. 2K-171/2013 and 30 Dec. 2008 No. 2K-7-437/2008)

iii. In defamation cases brought by a person whose activities may be in the public interest, special scrutiny must be applied to protect free discussion on public issues (See 24 Apr. 2012, No. 2A-3/2012)

 

Vilnius Regional Court declared that Dailius Dargis, author of a book “Real History of Daktarai Mafia Family” is found guilty for disclosing personal information and hence violating personal rights of Mr. Henrikas Daktaras.

The “sins” of a book writer were estimated to 6 000 LTL, down from the original demand of 150 000. Both sides will appeal against the verdict, so let’s leave this legal battle for a while and consider the general situation of the freedom of speech in Lithuania.

Mr. Dainius Radzevičius (Chairman of Lithuanian Journalist Union) and Ms Liudvika Meškauskaitė (a lawyer specialising on similar cases) both see this danger occasionally occurring. A journalist convicted in a criminal case last year – Mr. Gintaras Visockas – also has his own categorical opinion on this matter.

When talking to Balsas.lt, all three respondents held to their own specific viewpoints, but obviously they are all concerned about a future of the freedom of the press. Decriminalization of a freedom of speech is seen as the only possible logical solution. A number of democratic countries have done that already, but Lithuania is not following the example just yet.

The dilemma

For information publishing, a line between a legal activity and a criminal act is not strictly defined. The interpretation space is threatening journalists who may be prosecuted for seemingly innocent wording. Practice shows that feeling insulted and using a well-paid lawyer is all that it takes to start searching for “your own truths”.

For a few noteworthy details, let’s get back briefly to the verdict favoring Mr. Daktaras. According to the court, the book has illegally disclosed the illness of Mr Daktaras’ father, as he was already dead by that time. This detail didn’t escape the eyes of Mr Daktaras attorney – and neither the eyes of a judge.

Mr Daktaras’ attorney – Mr Kristupas Ašmys – was not feeling friendly when asked for comments about a court ruling that is potentially threatening the freedom of the speech.  “I haven’t seen the full court ruling yet, so I cannot comment. And I will not say anything about ‘crossing lines’ or ‘emerging threats’ neither. Why? Because I don’t want to”, said Mr Ašmys.

Meanwhile the journalist claims that he is not stopping after a court ruling and he is determined to prove the truth and defend the freedom of a speech by appealing the verdict. His attorney, Ms Aušra Ručienė, has also confirmed the plan.

“The court argumentation is totally incomprehensible. The decision is neither legal nor reasoned. Moral compensation was awarded for disclosing a father’s illness. That information was made public as much as 10 years ago, so it had to be time-barred. According to the experts, the argument of information source is not valid; these findings haven’t been disputed at all”, – argues Ms Ručienė.

Former police chief Mr Vytautas Grigaravicius perceives a certain threat as well: a dangerous precedent is being created.

“I don’t want to discuss the details of the case itself. Mr Daktaras has just exploited certain legal opportunities. But I believe that such court rulings, such examples are contagious, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we started seeing more and more of such cases in future”, says Mr Grigaravicius.

Appealing to the ECHR

An independent journalist Gintaras Visockas has also experienced quite some blows from the Lithuanian courts: on January 2011 he was found guilty of committing a criminal act – insulting a former presidential candidate Česlovas Jazerskas. Vilnius Regional Court in its final ruling imposed a fine of almost 25 thousand LTL, plus the legal fees and the court expenses.

Mr Visockas has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR), but the whole process is far from being finished any time soon. „As far as I know the case will continue for at least three years more. Many things may change during that time, and meanwhile a part of my every salary goes to a victim – to General Jezerskas that is. I am the biggest criminal now“, ironized Mr Visockas.

The convicted journalist points out that it is not the words he was convicted for: quite the contrarily, both courts convicted him for „what a statistical Lithuanian reader might have thought” instead. „The facts that I‘ve presented were true and nobody denied them. The Language Commission found my wording was okay as well. But the judges nevertheless found me guilty of insulting the presidential candidate. This ruling is absurd, but there are no more opportunities to appeal it in Lithuania – ECHR is the only remaining opportunity”, said Mr Visockas.

According to the journalist, nowadays it’s quite hard to guess rules of a game “Justice vs journalists”. “It’s confusing that the ‘statistical reader’ card can be used at any time. We’ve appealed to the Supreme Court (even though the Supreme Court is not considering such cases) with a request to review the case. All we got was an answer that the ruling is sound and valid. No argumentation whatsoever”, said Mr. Visockas.

In his interview to Balsas.lt, Mr Visockas remembered discussing with Turkish colleagues. According to them, Turkey’s authorities are more subtle when persecuting local reporters. Open attacks on the journalists are typically avoided. Instead, drugs or guns are slipped to the inconvenient journalists and criminal cases are built. But the journalistic activities are never punished directly in a fear of criticism or disapproval from international organizations.

“In Lithuania, a journalist is punished for what a statistical reader might be thinking. The court did not consider a fact that Č. Jezerskas was a public figure at the time, he was bidding for a presidency. Such person should be open and tolerant to the public criticism. Moreover, the facts in my article were true, only my opinion was negative about them. I don‘t want further problems – so I‘m not repeating those facts here – but I was questioning if Mr general would be able to cope with the state affairs if he‘s not able to deal with his own family life“, remembered Mr Visockas.

Press freedom index dropped

Chairman of Lithuanian Journalist Union (LJU) told us that an objective assessment of a situation is possible. “You can see by various press freedom indexes that Lithuanian situation has worsened last year. And not only in Lithuania, but in some other countries as well – Sweden for instance. Lithuanian criminal and civil cases indicate certain symptoms”, stressed Mr Radzevičius.

According to the LJU chairman, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) last year stated the position on decriminalization of freedom of speech. „Criminal penalties should only be imposed in exception cases – for example when a journalist caused a direct physical threat by revealing some information. To err is human, sometimes it is just not possible to check all the facts, so things should be treated more liberally”, said Mr Radzevicius.

Mr Radzevičius added that Lithuania still retains some attitudes that are more typical for not-so-democratic countries. “Currently freedom of expression is criminalized way too often. Courts started regarding such situations very radically. The same politicians throw a lot of mud at each other without consequences, while the journalists are severely punished for incorrect interpretation of the fact”, told Mr Radzevičius.

Abnormal situation

Jurist Ms Liudvika Meškauskaitė has stressed that legal actions against mass media means the situation is not normal. “Lithuanian journalists are being tried and convicted for defamation or insult. Of course, anything happens and there are certain norms to be followed, but it all should be dealt with in terms of civil procedures – by denying incorrect information, or compensation of moral damages – but never criminal”, claims Ms Meškauskaitė.

She referred to the example of journalist Visockas. “Mr Visockas is an independent journalist who lives on his own. He sustains himself; he’s independent from any political forces. But that didn’t stop criminal case where the journalist was convicted. Let’s wait for a word from ECHR”, said Ms Meškauskaitė.

According to Ms Meškauskaitė, anyone can be accused under the current legal system. “You call me a black sheep and I claim insulted by a journalist. As soon as you come to the court hearings, you become a criminal suspect. Such harassment may create a fear for expressing opinions.  And that is doom for freedom of expression”, stressed Ms Meškauskaitė.

According to the jurist, the only possible way for solving this problem is amendment to the Criminal Code. “Laws must be changed. Civil liability should stay there in any case. In a real world many wrong words are being spoken or written, and that causes harm. But it is not necessary to turn journalist into criminal offenders”, concluded Ms Meškauskaitė.

In the pictures: Liudvika Meškauskaitė, attorney in law for journalist Gintaras Visockas.

www.balsas.lt

2012.05.13