©Media Online 2001. All rights reserved.

Hate Speech As a Question of Objective Responsibility:

Interview with Orhideja Martinovic

 Stojan Obradovic

Orhideja Martinovic is a well-known Zagreb lawyer who, as the legal representative of the Croatian Journalists' Union, is engaged in numerous issues connected with journalists and the media. She is an activist on the Croatian Helsinki Committee, and an outspoken advocate of high standards in the defense of free speech, as well as in the battle against its misuse.

MO: When hate speech in the media is at issue, usually it's journalists, editors and politicians being called to task. Does the list of responsible parties end there?

MARTINOVIC: No, it doesn't. To begin with, publishers and media owners are missing from the list. They should be answerable, too. You have to follow the money trail, and see who can profit from that kind of speech, among other things. That's how we might get to the people in yellow journalism, who have used hate speech to turn huge profits and start up big broadcasters. It's important to point out that it's basically a question of how responsible journalists and media are; of course journalists have to answer for any texts they write with criminal messages, but someone ordered those texts, and enabled them to be published. Given this context, I think it's impossible to get around the responsibility of media publishers and owners, and I think it's time to talk about that.

In this vein, when we analyze the phenomenon more deeply, we don't have to stop at the most extreme cases, like what we saw in Croatia with Slobodni tjednik and the late Marinek Bozic, the father of all hate speech in Croatia. In my opinion, we should be reminded that some media that are now considered democratic and liberal were at one time playing a very dirty game.

MO: To what degree can the current regulations and professional standards contribute to resisting or banning hate speech in the media?

MARTINOVIC: It doesn't seem to me that we have enough key pieces at this point to resolve this problem. But I think we can begin to think in this direction. Maybe we can start thinking about banning it on the basis of the same assumptions and with the same criteria that the Hague Court used to establish so-called objective command responsibility. That is, not on the principle of the direct cause-and-effect relationship on which our criminal justice system is based, but instead on the principle that individuals are responsible who knew--or could have known--that broadcasting a certain piece of news could lead to murder, war crimes, etc. This could be a basis and a direction for confirming responsibility in media-related cases of spreading hate speech.

MO: How can experts and their institutions, for instance the journalism society, help create the conditions for disabling hate speech in the media?

MARTINOVIC: When it comes to free media, the journalism society in Croatia has been concerned with one major theme, and that is how to limit government pressure on free speech. Unfortunately, hate speech has not been at the center of attention in Croatian journalism societies. The Croatian Journalism Society (HND) is now acting as a sort of ethics committee, though, when it deems journalists to have violated a journalistic code of ethics in their writing.

MO: How can the media contribute to ameliorating the effects of hate speech?

MARTINOVIC: Well, we are already seeing a different discourse in the media. With the change of government, the big broadcasters suddenly took on the "desired" Social-democratic orientation. This began as soon as it was announced that the government would change hands. That chameleon-like behavior has nevertheless brought about something positive in the media--at least it eliminated the crudest and most outrageous practices of hate speech. There exist, of course, relics of that speech and speech like it, but it's diminished.

MO: Would it be possible to bring criminal charges against hate speech in the media?

MARTINOVIC: In principle, yes, but it would demand very serious and fundamental legal work. It only looks simple at first glance, because it seems to us that we're talking about something that's general knowledge, something for which there exists extensive and obvious proof, and so on, but the legal terrain is very slippery. The prosecution would have to be very carefully and professionally prepared.

MO: Would it be safe to say that we don't in fact have enough specialized or capable lawyers and other experts who could work on this issue and build the right kind of case? Is the idea of setting up a media ombudsmen a step in the right direction? What are the necessary preconditions to creating such an institution?

MARTINOVIC: To begin with, we would need to begin an exhaustive analysis, and start a legally and expertly prepared archive of texts exemplifying hate speech. After that, we would have to introduce an analytical service that would continue to follow content, since hate speech is still going on--true, to a lesser extent, in changed and less visible forms, and with fewer consequences than there were during the war. Today, though, there is nevertheless an atmosphere where it's more difficult to violate certain elementary rules of civil and democratic society; certain things can no longer occur, or can't occur without consequences. However, all of that is still hanging by a thread, and you never know when things might turn around. That's why an ombudsman institution in Croatia would be a good thing. I think that in practice it could clean up a lot, and prevent a lot. It would create conditions in which it would be easier and more effective to oppose hate speech, as well as to resolve some other media-related problems.

MO: How, in your view, do journalists get caught in that trap and become sources of hate speech?

MARTINOVIC: Well, it's a fact that many journalists with important posts in the media come without enough education, unprepared, without experience, plus they face the unresolved question of their status in media institutions. So for a number of reasons they're ripe for manipulation, to be used for various needs and aims, and not to serve the function of their profession.

The Journalists Union is now trying to make professional readiness a precondition for young journalists. This is not a formality; it's one attempt to prevent or at least lessen the possibility of manipulating or using journalists. Big broadcasters like HTV and some big publishers prefer to hire journalists who haven't finished college and may never finish, who have no field of expertise, who depend on the broadcasters they work for, where they are vulnerable to manipulation. The unions are now also insisting on resolving some other questions--of status, respect for labor laws, upholding the rights of the journalism profession, professional relations--and this would all strengthen the position of journalists, since the opportunities for manipulation are reduced under these conditions. A protected journalist is less vulnerable to pressure.

MO: More and more foreign investment is entering the Croatian media landscape. Is it realistic to expect that this capital investment will raise media standards, and thus eliminate some of the worst phenomena in the media, such as hate speech?

MARTINOVIC: Well, foreign investors will be primarily concerned with what makes money, and won't be too obsessed with moral or ethical questions. Take, for instance the foreign banks that have entered our markets. They haven't changed the interest rates that are in effect in their own countries, in fact, they have especially profited from the high interest rates that Croatian banks have imposed. The practice of "political correctness" hasn't developed here, and texts are possible here that would be hard to publish in Western democracies. If doing that pulls in profits for foreign investors, they're not going to limit themselves by posing too many ethical questions. Those questions must be asked, above all, by the journalism profession, a critical public and legislative regulation.

Stojan Obradovic is editor in chief of the independent news agency STINA, Split (Croatia). Translation by: N. H. ©Media Online 2001. All rights reserved.

go to top

P.O. Box, CH-8031 Zürich, Switzerland
Phone +41-1-272 46 37,  Fax +41-1-272 46 82, email: info@MEDIENHILFE.ch