Freedom of Expression at Risk? Michael Žantovský Senator One of the worst transgressions of the incumbent government (apart from other, minor misdemeanours and a couple of good deeds) is, in my view, that it has not only accepted the gravest threat to the freedom of press and expression since the November 1989 revolution but also actively assisted this peril. Out of many examples of this I'd like to focus on two recent cases. Unlike other observers I believe that in comparison between Minister Březina's lawsuit against the Reflex weekly and the government's as yet unfulfilled threat to sue collectively the weekly Respekt, the Březina case is far more menacing for democracy although it has generally invited only silly giggles. Why do I think so? The Březina case is by now an adjudication under the Czech legal system whilst in my lay view, a criminal or civil suit against Respekt does not stand a chance. The corruption-prone behaviour of some government ministers is demonstrable and the Prime Minister's admission that the purpose of the legal action is to destroy an independent weekly clearly reveals the tendentious character of the case. Even if it cannot prove the veracity of its contentions, Respekt will not lose court, at least in the European context. If everyone who has accused public officials of corruption were liable to prosecution, European jails would be full of journalists. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the freedom of the journalist comes complete with the possibility to resort to a degree of overstatement or even to provocation, even if an accusation is formulated as an opinion whose veracity therefore cannot be proved (24 Feb 1997) and that the limits of permissible criticism are broader in relation to a politician who acts as a public figure than in relation to a private person (Oberschlick vs. Austria, 1997). While the issue in the Social Democrat Government vs. Respekt case revolves around the truthfulness or lack of it in an actual statement, the issue in the Green Raoul case is one of… good taste. Yes, Minister Březina repeatedly said he was suing because the images published in Reflex had exceeded the limits of his good taste. The court identified with that. If, however, a court, or a member of government, attempt to pose as arbiters of public taste, then freedom of expression faces a lethal threat inasmuch the yardstick for good or bad taste, as Old Romans knew well, cannot be but arbitrary. (The Březina vs. Reflex case is strongly reminiscent of the well-known case Jerry Falwell vs. Larry Flint, familiar to the Czech viewer from the Miloš Forman film.) The Social Democrat Government's lawsuit affects current affairs analysis - a genre that examines the real world. The accusations of corruption-prone behaviour affect a concrete government and concrete ministers (of whom Březina is the youngest). Mr Holub presents a realistic judgement about real developments. In contrast, Minister Březina sued against a comic strip, i.e. a cartoon which is fictitious and overstated. Its liaison with the reality could not be less indirect if its captions started with "I had a dream." Even if it depicts a character of the same name and equally bad taste as Mr Březina does not yet make that figure Mr Březina and cannot encroach on his integrity, honour and other interesting attributes pertaining to this gentleman. Cartoon is a hyperbolic genre whose rapport with reality is far loser than of, say, a comic novel. Somebody may still recall Bruce Gold, the hero of Joseph Heller's novel whom the author had to say of someone who made a deeper dent in political history than Minister Březina - [Henry] "Kissinger… lied about peace and lied about war; he lied in Paris when he announced 'peace was at hand' just before the Presidential elections and he lied again afterward by blaming North Vietnam for bad faith … It was disgraceful and so discouraging … that this base figure charged with infamities too horrendous to measure and too numerous for listing should be gadding about gaily in chauffeured cars, instead of walking in Spandau with Rudolf Hess." - Not only would Kissinger never have sued Heller but he actually traded jokes with him on his novel at receptions. If a cartoon can be sued the same would seem to apply to a poem, painting or maybe even a grimace made in public which would make a potentate feel offended. Beware of yawning during speeches by Constitutional figures! It is not surprising to see this assault on the free press being led by the Prime Minister, who has yet to be brought to task for calling journalists "a scum", "a band of idiots" and miscellaneous other names, who is always ready to utter outrageous stupidities. Small surprise he has been joined by ministers who see in the intimidation of the press a chance how to avoid publication of their dubious machinations. But I am sad he has also been joined by my colleague Rychetský, deputy prime minister for legislative affairs, lawyer and a former human rights champion, who should know the government is playing with fire. I am even more saddened by his use of not entirely correct argumentation to defend the untenable. The Deputy Prime Minister thus commented on the lawsuit against Respekt in Mladá Fronta Dnes from 3 November 2001: "Mr Holub did not write that the government was creating a corruption-prone atmosphere but he wrote, 'corruption behaviour of all ministers, from the youngest to the oldest.' A corruption behaviour is when somebody receives bribes or invites their reception. On behalf of Mr Holub, this is a lie which he would have to prove. I feel deeply offended by this. I have never been offered a penny, I have never accepted a penny from anyone, and if he said all ministers he must have included me as well." But Mr Rychetský must have known that Mr Holub had not written anything like that and that he himself had resorted to timeless legalese trickery by inserting a key word in the text. For the word-for-word quotation reads: "However, the government has lost its battle with corruption, as evidenced by Transparency International data as well as the corruption-prone behaviour of ministers, starting with the youngest Březina and ending with the oldest Grégr." Mr Holub never said "all ministers". Anyone who has ever tackled a logical puzzle will conclude that he may have meant all ministers, some ministers, and certainly at least two ministers. But he has not written anything that could have offended Deputy Prime Minister Rychetský. Offended, though not by Respekt, is how we in the remaining crowd should feel. Michael Žantovský Born 3 Jan 1949 in Prague. Read psychology at Charles University's Philosophical Faculty in Prague and McGill University in Montreal. As post-graduate research student and scientific worker at Prague's Psychiatric Research Institute he pursued mainly the theory of motivation and nonverbal communication. Freelance translator and publicist from 1980. Has translated over 30 works of modern Anglo-American literature, incl. books by Nadine Gordimer, Toni Morrison, James Baldwin, E.L. Doctorow, Joseph Heller, Norman Mailer and Tom Stoppard. Has written lyrics to many songs. Author of a monograph on the life and work of Woody Allen (1989) and of translations of his stories and films. Political analyst and essayist. Founding member of Civic Forum, its spokesman from December 1989. From Jan 1990, spokesman and advisor to President Václav Havel. Czechoslovak (from Sep 1992) and Czech (from Jan 1993) Ambassador to the United States. Elected Senator in Nov 1996, Chairman of Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Committee since Dec 1996. Re-elected Chairman of the Civic Democratic Alliance for a second term in June 2001. His wife Jana is a photographer. Their son David born 2001. Senator Žantovský has two children from previous marriage - daughter Ester (1980) and son Jonáš (1984).