Edgars
Kupčs, the deputy editor of a regional newspaper, Zemgales Ziņas, has been
summoned to a closed court hearing at the Jelgava district court on December 4
to be ordered to reveal a source that gave him a public court transcript. The transcript, in turn, is the basis for a
criminal libel (yes, the kind where a journalist can be jailed fro what he or
she wrote) case against Kupčs, who used the transcript to write about the
allegedly shady dealings of a local attorney.
The
attorney, Dzintars Lagzdiņš, has represented the Jelgava district local
authority and a disputed article by Kupčs cited testimony by Lagzdiņš that
seemed to support the journalist’s claim that the attorney, while on the public
payroll, was providing information about public lands that could be available
for purchase to a private businessman. This testimony was heard in open court
and could have been reported by anyone.
Lagdziņš
filed the criminal libel charges saying that his testimony, as lifted from a
transcript of the open and public proceedings, was distorted to place him in a
bad light and make allegations of unethical and corrupt behavior.
While
Latvian law, like the legal systems of most countries, offers civil remedies
for blatantly false publications and statements, the criminal libel law is seen
as a blunt tool against the freedom of expression and a remnant of a
Soviet/authoritarian mentality. It also carries a far stronger chilling effect
than a civil lawsuit (which can, of course, in some contexts, be financially
burdensome for journalists and publishing houses).
Another
curious aspect of the case is that the demand to disclose the source of a
transcript of open court testimony comes from a local police inspector who has reportedly
expressed her conviction that Kupčs is guilty and that Lagdziņš is right to
prosecute him. While she may hold that view, the police inspector seems to have
ignored the absurdity of breaking a basic journalistic right to protect sources
in order to reveal – not some damaging whistleblower – but merely someone who
had a written version of what was said in open court. The source or sources did
nothing wrong – unless there is another agenda to take revenge on them in
addition to jailing and muzzling Kupčs.
This
case should be on some kind of short list at Index on Censorship or Article 19,
and perhaps the Committee to Protect Journalists (although Kupčs’ life is not
being threatened by, say, some African militia). Latvian authorities, even in
the “provinces” must understand that
they cannot violate fundamental media freedoms and the right to protect
sources. At least the Latvian
Journalists’s Association has clearly stated that Kupčs must not reveal his
sources. He should have the support of fellow journalists and editors around
Europe and in the world.
