In order to reduce the manifestations of aggressive verbal behavior in society, the Saeima is drafting new articles in the Law on Administrative Penalties for offences in the field of administration, public order and the use of the state language. Politicians and civil servants are struggling to reconcile their perceptions of offensive language and to put a price tag on it, at the risk that really dangerous hate speech will be effectively decriminalized.
The amendments are currently being pushed forward for approval at first reading, with the initiative being taken by the Criminal Law Policy Subcommittee and the Ministry of the Interior. The fundamental difference between the proposals is that, in the Committee's proposal, an administrative penalty is to be imposed if the offended person has reason to fear. For example, if an aggressive anti-vaxxer in the street says to an MP "you're going to get your lights punched out", this is a very real possibility. And this would be reasonable grounds to prosecute that person with a fine of between 14 and 100 penalty units. So up to 500 euros.
In the proposal of the Ministry of the Interior, however, the likelihood of being punched in the face does not matter at all. The mere fact that such a threat has been made or written on the internet will be enough to bring the person to administrative responsibility.
Neatkarīgā has already reported that the Minister of the Interior "Golubeva is pushing hate speech into the Law on Administrative Penalties."
Marija Golubeva joined the hearing to argue her proposals in person and explained that threats as such are unacceptable behavior that needs to be curbed. The Ministry also proposes to establish administrative liability for discrimination based on racial, national, ethnic, religious or any other characteristic and prohibition of discrimination. Penalties for threats, harassment and discrimination are already provided for in Criminal Law. However, politicians want to make it possible to punish also minor verbal offences that do not cause significant harm and do not qualify as the subject of criminal proceedings. Internet name-calling does not cause physical harm but can cause fear and discomfort for the victim. Such utterances can be treated administratively as petty hooliganism, but the police do not usually do so. In rare cases, they start criminal proceedings, but more often - just deal with it, dear offended citizen.
The problem with the proposed bill is that, going into more detail, it contains emotional and difficult-to-measure quantities. In the Committee's proposal, threats to health, sexual inviolability and property will be administratively punished "if there are grounds to fear that the threat will be carried out". The question is how much fear is required for the police to initiate administrative proceedings and how much fear will be sufficient for criminal proceedings. Or another amendment states that harassment takes the form of intrusive and disruptive communication. Numerically, how many times would a comment need to be made to be considered intrusive?
Practitioners in the field also pointed out at the Committee hearing that, as the draft law currently stands, it would be difficult to distinguish where administrative liability ends and where criminal liability starts. Sandis Vilcāns of the Ministry of Justice warned that overlapping the two liabilities would reduce the level of criminal liability protection, as it is easier for the police to pursue administrative cases. But Lelde Burve of the Prosecutor General's Office went as far as to call the Interior Ministry's proposal decriminalization of threats as an offence. She also criticized the ministry's ideas on administrative punishment of social hatred and intolerance. In such a case this would also impose a 250 euros fine for a husband and wife who have a fight, for example in a shop, and someone notices.
And there is another controversial aspect. The new norms are currently designed on the assumption that threats and hate speech in virtual and physical life are equally dangerous. But the cases of threatening to punch someone on the street are much rarer when compared to the flood of anger on the internet. There are also few real consequences for online threats. MP Juris Rancāns warns that extending the new norms to the internet will result in a flood of complaints to the police for minor incidents. Unwanted followers can be blocked on the internet and also on the phone, and it is not the state's job to resolve all the grievances that arise between individuals. "Wouldn't it be too much if we banned negative emotions by force of law?" asks the MP rhetorically. But as for chronic speakers of threats and hate speech who really threaten public order and the safety of individuals - such as the type who harasses MPs and journalists by promising to kill them - they could be made obliged to attend behavioral correction courses. Similar to wife beaters or aggressive drivers. A warning for the first time, a fine for the second, together with an educational program to teach tolerance and diversity of opinion. If negative emotions prevail, then the Criminal Law must be invoked. Such a procedure has not yet been written into the draft law, but it can be expected that many proposals will be submitted for a second reading. There is no shortage of creative ideas from MPs on how to use penal policy to force Latvian society to become more tolerant and inclusive.
*****
Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.