Freedom and confidentiality in media transactions

I thought for a while about where to put this and decided to post, initially, to the Free Speech Emergency blog because media are one of the most important vessels of free speech. I don't, presently, see any serious free speech issues in the sale of the Latvian media group Diena and the business newspaper Dienas bizness by the Swedish Bonnier Business Press to what will eventually be a mutual fund with investments in Baltic media.

The controversy about this in the Latvian media has arisen from the apparent structure of the transaction. The Bonniers were so eager to sell their Latvian assets that they wanted to do it before the buyer came into legal existence. That is, the Luxembourg-based Catella Media Investment Fund has not been legally founded yet. In order to seize the opportunity, the Estonian financier Kalle Norberg and the Latvian former executive of Diena some years ago, Aleksandrs Tralmaks, organized a temporary arrangement to buy and hold the assets until the final ownership structure was in place.

They also needed to fund the transaction, rumored to be around LVL 9 million, and what they seem to have done is a variation on when an ordinary citizen is offered a chance to buy something two weeks before payday. She doesn't have the cash on hand, but borrows it from several neighbors. They then, technically, become "investors" in "today only" discounted flat-screen television until the end of the month, when our real buyer is paid and pays off her neighbors. Is it important to know who these neighbors are?

OK, I am simplifying the process with Diena and Dienas bizness, but as I understand it, two of the future owners and investors are already known -- Kalle Norberg and Alexandes Tralmaks. They have put up some of their own money. The other investors, who have, for various reasons, wanted to remain anonymous, but both their and Norberg and Tralmaks' shares in the media assets will change when the mutual fund is set up. As more money comes into the fund, which, presumably, will become owner of all shares in the Latvia media assets, the relative ownership proportion of the initial investors will be diluted and will change on a day-to-day basis, as will the identities and number of all owners of shares in Catella Media Investment. Mutual funds trade on a daily basis.

Let us make a wild guess and say that a certain Niklas Z of Skype fame lent USD 500 000 to the transaction entity. When the mutual fund becomes operational, Niklas Z' s loan will be changed into shares of Catella, and the asset that he and all the other mystery men and women will directly own will be shares in a mutual fund. In the short term, of course, most or all of Catella's capital will be invested in Diena and Dienas bizness, but there could be additional purchases of media assets in the future.

Mutual funds are pure instruments of financial investment -- I put my money in fund A, whose managers and investment strategy I trust, and expect to see growth of, say, 40 % when I sell my fund shares in five years. In the interim, the fund, for all I care, can finance chipmunk races and crocodile choir contests, as long as I get my expected return on investment. I am not interested in owning or influencing the management and strategy of any of the fund' s assets, otherwise I would buy those shares directly, in sufficient amounts and put myself or my representative on the board of Chipmunk Racers R Us.

If and when someone in the Latvian media gets a leaked copy of the transaction related investment agreement, it will probably include a rather dull list of Estonian, Danish, Swedish and British names -- Veiko, Tarmo, Niklas, Samantha, whatever. And, certainly, the media will have full freedom to publish this "scoop" and should be protected from lawsuits or prosecution should that happen.

In short, I think the uproar over who the mystery investors in the transactions is overblown and too much energy is put into exploring conspiracy theories. It is certainly necessary to have transparency in media ownership, but things should shortly fall into place. Of course, I could be wrong and the real owners of Diena and Dienas bizness are Elvis Presley, Borat and three Russian oligarchs.

There are bigger f**kwits...

There are bigger fuckwits than Latvia's parliamentarians, but given time, our Lithuanian (or leiši, a kind of very mild Latvian racist term for the folks to the south) brethren may well lose that honor. The Lithuanian parliament has passed a law forbidding "favorable" discussion of homosexuality. which, in classic chilling-effect terms, forbids any discussion at all. It brings back old Latvian prejudices of an ignorant, impoverished rabble of provincial peasants (a la Lithuanian/leišu beggars wailing by the church -- a folkloric Latvian phrase -- gaudo kā leišu nabagi pie baznīcas). The law seems to have passed with an overwhelming majority. These folks really believe in this kind of repression.
Alas, Lithuania, formally, is a modern European Union member state, just as Latvia is. But Latvia, too busy with its intractable economic disaster (and spinning the wheels of a downward spiral with frantic budget cuts) would probably do the same. Certainly, Riga's near future deputy mayor, Aunārs Šlesers -- hey, I meant Ainārs :), Latvians will get the joke of that Freudian misspelling-- will try to ban any activities discussing sexual minorities in his city-state.
Meanwhile, with drafting its own anti-gay-speech law on the back burner, Latvia has enough trouble with one of Sweden's leading dailies, Expressen, demanding in an unsigned (a view of the paper's editorial board) editorial to Stop Latvian Censorship Now.* The paper refers to a law that forbids spreading false information about the national currency and the financial system. One of Expressen's recent guest opinion writers, the Latvian economics lecturer Dmitrijs Smirnovs, was arrested last fall for warning, in a public forum reported by a regional newspaper, that people should not keep their money in Latvian lats or Latvian banks. For this, he was detained for two days by the Latvian Security Police, in an action that made them a renewed version of the Soviet KGB.
Expressen now writes that Sweden's Finance Minister Anders Borg should make financial assistance to Latvia contigent on a repeal of Latvia's restrictions on free speech. "Instead of devaluing the lat, Latvia has devalued the freedom of expression," the Swedish daily wrote.
One can only agree. After all, the Smirnovs case was the reason for starting this blog. There is still reason to continue it.

* link in Swedish

Anti-free speech party to rule in Riga

Latvia's First Party/Latvia's Way (Latvijas Pirmā Partija/Latvijas Ceļš --LPP/LC) took slightly over 15 % of the vote for city council in Riga and will probably be the sole coalition partner for the winner, the Harmony Center electoral alliance, which took more than 33 % of the vote.
Whatever other positions the LPP/LC may have taken on economic and other political issues, on free speech this party is clearly authoritarian and cryptofascist. Leading members of the LPP/LC called for and supported bans on peaceful Gay Pride marches in the Latvian capital. The issue with Gay Pride is not whether one likes, dislikes or is indifferent to homosexuality, but strictly one of the freedom of speech and assembly. The LPP/LC is a party that wants to restrict the rights of all Latvian residents to choose what points of view they may or may not hear. That is, as I pointed out earlier, the other side of the free speech rights of any particular point of view -- the right of other to hear or ignore that viewpoint without interference from municipal or government authorities.
Ainārs Šlesers, who may become mayor of Riga, has declared that he would ban all future gay pride events. Again, putting aside the specific issue of gay rights, homosexuality, etc., it shows that Šlesers is an authoritarian backed by religious fanatics who advocate a theocracy instead of a democracy with individual freedom.
There are, of course, other reasons to worry about Šlesers as mayor, including a long list of scandals and dubious dealings that have been documented by Delna, the Latvian unit of the anti-corruption organization Transparency International. But for the purposes of this blog, the main threat from the coalition of Harmony Center (Saskaņas Centrs/SC ) and LPP/LC is to the freedom of speech and assembly. I doubt that SC will rein in Šlesers on this issue. Latvian society is profoundly ignorant and backwards in its understanding of democracy and homophobic as well. It is precisely for this reason, that the free speech rights of those advocating an, in this case, unpopular viewpoint, must be protected but probably will not be protected and, instead, repressed by the upcoming city administration in Riga.

Fools' speech is free speech too, especially for Latvian-Americans

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that a Chicago-area (the USA, the land of the First Amendment) emigre (or the fashionable diaspora) Latvian group supporting Ainars Šlesers for mayor of Riga has been hounded out of existence by elements of the American Latvian community. This was to a large extent triggered by a somewhat indignant story in the Latvian daily Diena, which apparently is read and respected by the diaspora 

Don't get me wrong, there is no way I support Šlesers and his theocratic, holy-roller cryptofascist Latvian First Party/dessicated corpse of the once-liberal Latvian Way (LPP/LC). But that does not mean that people don't have the right to think and say that Šlesers is the greatest fuckin' thing since machine-sliced cheese. That is what free speech and a diversity of opinion are all about. As for the American Latvian Association "distancing" itself from the pro-Šleseristas in Chi-town, well, Maryland is already pretty distant. It would have been better to say: "we make no political endorsements and urge all Latvian citizens, be they in Latvia or abroad, to vote for the candidates of their choice." (SEE AMENDMENT BELOW)  As for others who had objections to the Šleseristas -- well, organize a debate, put up a website, go to www.latviansonline.com or some such place and argue against Šlesers of for one of the other candidates. Yo, like the States is a democracy and has plenty of room for wacko opinions! And if  the diasporistas really follow what is going on here, down at the grass roots, they should know that this place is a real political Wackostan. Supporting Šlesers pales beside some of the crackpottery available here.

And finally, to the lawyers Blumbergs and the grab-bag of Latvian-American accountants, public servants, salesmen etc, WTF are you so chickenshit? If you really believe in Bro Ainars, don't fold the first time the wind blows against you. Tell ALA to ... well, I am reminded of  T-shirt I saw at the American Latvian Song Festival in 1978 -- it was worn by a friend of my from Germany and his brother as a protest against an ultraconservative relative of theirs. The custom shirts said Arvīd, ej tu dirst! The best translation I can come up with is  "Arvid, go fuck yourself!" 

So guys and gals from Chi-town, come out from under the table or bed or wherever you went after the first round of criticism, and put on your Arvīd T-shirts (aimed at those diasporistas who hounded you) on the front, and a picture of the stone-faced (ķieģelpurns) Ainārs on the back.

ADDED June 2, morning, Latvian time: 

It seems that ALA did make the kind of statement I mention above, a kind reader informs. I was basing this on the Diena report, where to "distance one's self" suggests disapproval and disagreement, like when football team X says "we are glad about winning the championship, but distance ourselves from those fans who decided to burn down the town hall and 20 cars in celebration."

Baltic Pride takes place with no problems

The Baltic Pride march took place in Riga on May 16 with almost no problems. The active counter demonstrators were just a little more in number than the marchers. The Pride march went out on a downtown street, though cordoned off by police. An interesting observation, not in the video as I edited it, was a scene at one street crossing passed by the march where there were perhaps 150 people simply watching, expressing no negative emotions. Maybe there is a seed of tolerance, though judging by the hysterical and hateful comments in the portals (delfi.lv), this is still a country with a huge element of post-soviet, mindless neanderthals.

SORRY EVERYONE - F**KED UP THE VIDEO, UNINTENTIONALLY MADE IT PRIVATE :( FIXED NOW.

Administrative Court overrules Pride ban -- will God take vengeance?

The Administrative Court has overturned a ban on holding the Baltic Pride event and march in a park in downtown Rīga. The decision was expected based on earlier cases and European Court of Human Rights practice/
Catholic Cardinal Jānis Pujats, Reverent Jānis Šmits and a representative of the anti-gay organization No Pride petitioned the court to be heard as interested parties but their petitions were rejected.
Representatives of the City of Riga could give no specific reasons for overturning their earlier permit for the Pride event. Lawyers for the LGBT organization Mozaika, who are organizing the event, cited press reports and a letter from 34 members of the Riga City Council (RCC) as evidence that the suspension of their rights of speech and assembly was based on political pressure and said that any other unpopular minority could suffer the same fate.
Reverend Šmits, leaving the courtroom after his petition was declined, is reported to have said: God will take vengeance.

Riga City Council restricts everyone's freedom

I think one can look at the ban on the planned  Baltic Pride in Riga as a direct attack on the freedom of choice of everyone in Latvia, regardless of their feelings about gay rights. In fact, one could paste over the issue with asterisks to make the point more directly. Say, the Riga City Council has banned ********.  No one will ever know what ******** is, because it is banned. Citizens no longer have the choice or option to know what ******** is.

Of course, almost everyone knows that the Pride march has been banned, but the effect of this is that no one has the individual freedom to chose to 1) attend and support 2) watch from curiousity 3) go and protest or 4) ignore the whole thing.  That means that everyone' s freedom has been diminished by the actions of an allegedly democratic city government.

We forget too often that the other side of the freedom of speech and assembly is the right of all adult people to freely pick and choose their "informational environment" from a range of choices that is not limited by state interference.

Banning the Baltic Pride in Riga directly violates the specific right to free speech and assembly of the LGBT community and organizations, whose causes may be of no interest to many other Latvians. But the ban also diminishes everyone' s freedom of choice and opens the way for the local and national governments to take even more choices away from the people. First we say you shall not be informed about ********. Next it will be ########.  Does anyone, other than the elected products of a warped homo-postsovieticus society want this?