Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Issue 30-31
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law May 30, 1996
Journalists Adopt Norms of Professional Ethics
Unfortunately, under conditions of freedom Lithuanian
mass media does not always accept and understand its responsibility for
a printed and uttered word. Journalists used to interfere in human private
life in a free and easy manner, declare a man guilty without an appropriate
court decision, avoid giving the floor to those whom they had criticized,
and mix facts and opinions.
A list of sore spots of Lithuanian journalism may be
extended, but the conclusion is clear - it encounters the problems of professional
ethics. There are three reasons of such a situation (by the way, this state
of affairs is very similar to the situation in the countries of Eastern
and Central Europe). Firstly, a number of journalists in Lithuania has
doubled or may be trebled for 6-7 recent years.
A large number of people who does not know the principles
of journalism and, first of all, professional ethics have come in
mass media. Secondly, about 2000 newspapers, magazines, radio and television
studios have been registered in small Lithuania. They are involved in a
life and death competition that often oversteps the bounds of professional
ethics. Even editions having a good reputation often infringe ethics standards.
Thirdly, very often mass media becomes economically dependent on its new
owners, who sometimes, apparently, require writings that do not comply
with the ethics of a journalist.
The Lithuanian Center of Journalism has prepared the
draft Code of Ethics, which complies with the Resolution ‘On Journalism
Ethics’ of the Parliament Assembly of the Council of Europe (1993) and
the analogous documents adopted by Scandinavian countries, Italy, Russia,
and other countries.The draft Code has been sent to a large number of editorial
staffs and published in six leading newspapers. These publications have
received the broad press comments of journalists and the public.
The Lithuanian Center of Journalism has received more
than two hundred responses and comments. Some articles of the draft Code
have been discussed in newspapers. More than 200 delegates appointed by
the Lithuanian Union of Journalists, the Lithuanian Association of Journalists,
the Association of Publishers of Periodicals, the Lithuanian Radio and
Television Association, the Lithuanian Radio and Television, and the Lithuanian
Center of Journalism took part in the joint meeting on March 25, 1996.
The content of the draft Code has been discussed for the whole day.
The comments of colleagues from Sweden, Denmark, and
other countries have been read out. 165 delegates have voted for the Code,
1 delegate has abstained from voting, 3 delegates have voted against. The
Appeal to the Seimas (Parliament) of Lithuania with the request to amend
some laws so that this Code would work and the Appeal to all editorial
staffs to abide by the norms of ethics fixed in the Code have been passed
as well.
The adoption of the Code of Ethics of Journalists and
Publishers is very important in three aspects. Firstly, now Lithuanian
mass media has got norms corresponding to European standards. Secondly,
the adoption of the Code of Ethics and the creation the Committee for Journalism
Ethics may predetermine the choice of Lithuanian parliamentarians. Very
soon they are expected to pass or vote down the system of self-regulation
of mass media, which has been included in the draft Law on Public Information.
The Code of Ethics passed by journalists is a fundamental
element of the system of self-regulation of Lithuanian journalism. Thus,
parliamentarians will be invited to pass or vote down the procedure when
some disputes, arguments, and disagreements arise between mass media organizations
and other institutions of the society are regulated by means of journalistic
organizations and the obligations voluntary taken by them avoiding legal
proceedings. And finally, the development, discussion, and adoption of
the Code have united Lithuanian journalistic organizations that did not
interact on a regular basis
Dr. Laimonas Tapinas
Director of Lithuanian Center of Journalism
Code of Ethics of Lithuanian Journalists
I. Truth, Honesty, Decency
1. Neither publishers, nor journalists shall
have the right to consider that news is their own property. Organizers
of public information should not consider information to be merchandise.
The possibility to receive and disseminate information is one of the major
freedoms of the individual.
2. With respect to the human right to obtain fair
information, a journalist shall propagate true and accurate news as well
as full range of opinions.
3. News shall be deemed to be the facts and data
based on truth that might be established in accordance with appropriate
means of verification and evidence.
4. Opinions shall be expressed by the journalist
authorized by editorial staff or any other individual publicizing the notes
and comments on general ideas and news. Nevertheless, opinions tend to
be inevitably subjective, the author has to ensure that an opinion should
be presented honestly and fairly, without any distortion of facts or data.
5. News and opinions should be clearly identified
as such.
6. With due respect to diversity of opinions,
the journalist has to present as many as possible opinions of impartial
individuals. This is particularly vital in the case when certain mass media
addresses any urgent, vague or contradicting issues of life.
7. The journalist shall assess his information
sources in a critical way, scrutinize facts with due diligence on the grounds
of at least several sources.
8. Journalists shall be solidary in defence of
the colleague from prosecution for criticism.
9. The journalist shall use all his attempts to
gather information from all available sources in order to be sure information
is true, full and impartial.
10. Information shall be gathered in an ethical
and lawful ways.
11. On request for information, the journalist
has to identify himself/herself, specify the editorial staff and his position,
to warn the individual that his/her words might be publicized, except in
case when officially inaccessible or confidential information is being
gathered.
12. The journalist has no right to use pressure
or offer any compensation in exchange for information to the source of
information.
13. The journalist and publisher have to assess
the obtained information from the individual under stress, shock, who occurred
in a helpless position or the individual who for the first time communicates
with the representative of public mass media with particular care.
14. The journalist should not use for direct citing
audio and video recording means, if the individual providing the information
opposes to it or the individual is under stress, shock or has obvious physical
defects.
15. The journalist should identify the source
of his information. For this reason he has to obtain a permission to refer
to the informant’s name. In case the source of information requests not
to disclose his/her name. The journalist has no right to disclose it.
16. In preparation news for publication, the journalist
has no right to supplement it with invented facts, to distort it or omit
material facts.
17. The journalist shall distinguish the news
necessary for public knowledge and those that satisfies human curiosity.
18. Disputable or insignificant facts or events
should not be presented as a sensation or as material matters.
19. Rumors and reports of anonymous informants
should not be published, except in the case the news is of vital importance
for public and shall be presented as unverified.
20. The journalist and publisher shall not violate
human rights and dignity.
21. The journalist shall not humiliate or mock
at the individual’s family name, race, nationality, religious convictions,
age, sex or physical deficiencies even in the case such individual has
committed a crime.
22. Journalists shall not publish artificially
deformed photo arrangements, untrue signatures under photos that might
insult the portrayed individuals. The journalist shall not publish audio
and visual arrangements that distort the ideas or facts of the informant.
This provision shall not be applied to publication of caricatures, cartoons
or comic plots.
23. The journalist should not publish critical
works, the arguments of which are based on the facts of their life by making
the impression that the journalist is settling an old personal score.
24. On quoting a speech of any individual, the
journalist shall attempt to retain not only its essence but also the manner
of speaking.
25. The mass media shall correct the mistakes
and inaccuracies it has made without delay that might insult particular
persons until the insulted individuals demands to do so.
26. In case it becomes obvious that the information
in any mass media contains untrue facts, the information shall be specified
or erroneous facts denied immediately, by publishing them in an appropriate
place in the next issue, radio or television program.
27. The criticized individual shall always have
the right to justify himself/ herself and to explain. In case of failure
to have such a possibility, the public shall be informed on it.
28. It shall be necessary to announce the evaluations
of the Ethic Commission of Journalists and Publishers.
II. Independence of Journalism and its responsibility
29. The journalist shall not carry out assignments
of any authorities, private structures or separate individuals and shall
be engaged only in the assignments given by the managers of the mass media.
30. The journalist shall not have the right to
accept gifts, travels free of charge, to go on the vacations paid by somebody
and receive any other signs of benevolence that might affect his independence.
If, in exceptional cases, the journalist travels free of charge (on business
matters), he should state this fact in his work.
31. The journalist cannot receive any fringe benefits
from anybody, except his editorial board, a professional union and non-profit
public organizations.
32. People have the right to know the owner of
the mass media and his/her economic interests.
33. The journalist and publisher shall not use
professional information for his personal benefit.
34. Mass media shall clearly distinguish commercials,
advertising, ordered articles from the works of journalists.
35. It shall be forbidden to publish commercials
by covering it with impartial information. The journalist shall not receive
compensation for concealed advertising.
36. The journalist should consider if it is appropriate
to use his name, image and voice for advertising, except the cases when
such advertising aims at humanitarian goals instead of commercial ones.
37. Not only mass media shall be free but its
journalist shall also be free. He/she has to refuse to perform the assignment
given by the manager of editorial staff in case it contradicts national
legislation, the ethics of journalist and his/her personal convictions.
The journalist has the right not to undersign his work in case it undergone
material changes without his consent and it resulted in distortion of the
idea of the work and emerged the ideas not belonging to the author.
38. The journalist shall have professional qualification.
III. Protection of Personal Honor, Dignity and Privacy
39. The journalist shall not have the right
to publish the facts about the individual’s private life without his consent,
except in the case they are related to any high official and these facts
are important to the society or criminal actions are being fixed.
40. The journalist shall comply with the presumption
of innocence. Only the courts shall have the right to accuse an individual
on its enforced decision.
41. In case in the interest of society it is necessary
to disclose the name of the individual who has committed a crime and afterwards
the fact of crime has not been proved, the journalist shall inform about
it immediately.
42. The journalist and publisher shall not publish
groundless, unverified accusations.
43. The journalist should not publish the names
of victims, particularly in the case of sexual aggression.
44. The journalist and publisher should consider
if it is worth it to publicize the names of delinquents even in the case
their fault has been proved in the court of law.
45. It shall not be proper to publicize the names
of the individuals who committed minor crimes and have been lightly punished,
except in the case when such individuals are high officials.
46. The journalist should not remind the old crime
committed by the individual who has served his sentence. This rule shall
not apply to the individual in case of undoubted recidivism and if such
individual continues his work that was related to serious crime he has
committed and claims to a high position in the society.
47. The journalist should consider if it is worth
to publish the facts about family scandals.
48. The journalist and publisher should not overdo
the pictures of catastrophes, accidents or violence that might insult the
feelings of the relatives as well as sensitiveness of readers and spectators.
49. The journalist should be particularly careful
by publishing the facts about suicides or attempts of committing suicide,
avoiding mentioning the family names.
50. On publishing private letters, the consent
of the author of the letter and addressee or their lawful inheritors shall
be obtained.
51. The journalist shall not publicize medical
information that has not been verified.
52. The journalist shall show particular respect
to the rights of the children and adults with physical or mental incapacity.
IV. Relations among Journalists
53. In their business relations journalists
should maintain the balance between fair competition and professional solidarity.
54. The journalist should not impede his colleague
to gather information, to mislead him intentionally, report on him to the
authorities.
55. Neither individual journalists nor separate
editorial staffs shall settle old scores with each other via mass media.
Such behavior makes harm not only to their prestige but also the prestige
of their profession.
56. Plagiarism shall be deemed to be one of the
most serious offenses in journalist profession.
57. The journalist should identify the primary
source of information in case he referred in his work to the facts used
in any other author’s work even in the case he has not quoted them but
adapted the work of the colleague.
58. The journalist should not work in the mass
media that tolerates the principles of dishonorable journalism or unfair
competition.
59. The journalist shall not write about any other
individual or sign the work written by him.
60. The journalist shall not have the right to
offer his work to any other mass media, without agreement with the chiefs
of editorial staff.
61. In case a free lance offers the same work
to several other editorial boards, he shall warn the latter about it.
62. The journalist shall keep in confidentiality
the secrets of the editorial staff that are not related to violations of
laws and the Code of Ethics.
63. The journalist shall protect his professional
honor and prestige.
Lithuania Adopts Transparency Regulation
in Public Person's Private Life
Lithuanian media will be able to inform about the private
life of state officials according to Article 8 of the Public Informing
Act, which was approved by the Lithuanian Parliament on April 4, 1996.
The entire Public Informing Act has not been passed by now. The majority
of Parliament members have voted for the following wording of the Article:
Article 8. Information not for Publicizing
It is prohibited for media to publicize information that:
1) incites to change the constitutional system of the Republic of Lithuania;
2) encroaches upon the territorial integrity of the Republic of Lithuania;
3) fans war, national, racial, religious discord.
It is forbidden to disseminate information that notoriously
does not correspond to reality, that defames, insults, humiliates human
pride and dignity. Information about private life of a person is allowed
to publicize only if the person agrees with that or in those cases when
the publicizing of information does not harm the person or when information
helps to disclose law violations or crimes and also when information is
produced in an open court proceedings during the investigation of a case.
It is prohibited to disseminate pornography.
The officers of state institutions, functionaries or
other public persons (or persons participating in public work or political
activities) shall have the right to privacy, except the cases when their
private life may influence society.
Every citizen of the Republic of Lithuania, state institutions
or other organizations may apply to a court according to laws if the regulations
of this Article are violated.
Some Lithuanian journalists hope that the present wording
of Article 8 may be useful for them in trials when journalists are accused
of defamation. The Article forbids to disseminate information that “notoriously
does not correspond to reality”. This resembles the practice of USA courts
concerning the Law on Defamation. According to the decision of the Supreme
Court of the USA public officials cannot recover damages for defamation
regarding their official conduct unless they prove that the defamatory
statements were both false and made with what the Court termed “actual
malice”. It is possible to draft a parallel between the terms “with actual
malice” and “notoriously does not correspond to reality”. It reads about
knowledge that the defamatory statement was false or reckless disregard
of whether it was false or not. The Lithuanian Parliament has passed Article
8 at the second vote. The first vote was on February 1, 1996. Then parliamentarians
approved the wording of the Article that has forbidden the dissemination
of information about the private life of politicians.
The representative of the Christian Democrats’ fraction
of the Lithuanian Parliament A. Raskinis has suggested a more exhaustive
formulation of Article 8.
This alternative draft, beside other things, forbids
to use media for “insulting personal feelings of national, religious, and
patriotic values”. The draft of Raskinis reads that to film or photograph
persons in public places and publicize this information without their permission
is allowed only if they are in a group no less than 5 people.
9 parliamentarians have voted for Raskinis’ draft and
68 Parliament members have voted for the draft that was approved.
Rytis Juozapavius
Institute of Journalism, Vilnius University
The Development of Self-Regulation of
Estonian Media During the Last Three Years
Estonian Newspapers Association founded a Press Council
in 1991. But only since 1993 the Council has been more active: there has
been more cases and the reasoning of the decisions has been taken more
seriously.
In December 1992 a “Contract” was signed by the member
organizations of Union of Newspapers. The “Contract” is the basic document
which regulates the activities of the Council. The Press Council has 10
members and a chairman who is elected for two years. The employee of the
chairman should not be a media organization. One third of the members should
be the representatives of public. Press Council is the first organization
in Estonia which acts like a public jury between an institution (media)
and public. Council is “teethless”, it has no power to fine news organizations,
but the media organization which has not followed “good journalistic conduct”,
should publish the decision of the Council. If the news organization does
not publish the decision, the Estonian News Agency will do it.
The main ideology of Estonian Press Council is to protect
the independence of media and develop “good journalistic standards/practice.”
The Council have no code of ethics, but the council
have build its standards in accordance with the main rules of media ethics
in Nordic Countries, Great Britain and international rules. There has been
several discussions among the members of the Council should there be a
Code of Conduct or not.. It has been decided, that since the important
deontological questions: what must a media professional do? What is the
hierarchy of loyalities (to society? to media institution? to public? to
a “man from the street”?) are in the process of discussing, any kind of
code might be too formal, without meaning to the majority of journalists.
Therefore the Estonian Press Council has followed the
method of casuistry: each case is discussed and each case sets a number
of rules. If there will be any similar case, the previous rules will be
looked over and will become more sophisticated.
The following gives an overview about the practice of
Estonian Press Council in 1993-1995.
Since January 1993 until present time the Council has
handled 46 cases.
Here are the cases which could be taken as an established
rules.
Several cases include more than one problem, then the
minor problem(s) are just mentioned.
1. Truth and correction of mistakes
The first such a case (Ameerika Balti Bank v. “Eesti
Maa”) was handled in 10.03 1993- 14.04 1993.
A weekly published information about one bank. The registration
place of the bank was not correct. The weekly did not show up much enthusiasm
to publish correction.
The Press Council decided: truth publishing is the first obligation
of a journalist. The commentaries should be based on facts which source
is reliable and identified. Journalist should publish a correction if the
information he/she published was not fully true.
2. Deception of a reader
(25.03- 14.04 1993 -”Eesti Eskpress” contra “Televisioonileht”)
Newspaper “Estonian Television”, publishing an ad about itself used comparative
research data which incorrectly showed that the spread of the weekly “Estonian
Ekspress” was smaller than the spread of weekly “Estonian Television.”
The Council’s decision was: that type of practice is
unfair competition (which is normally legally regulated, but at that time
Estonia had not pass its fair competition law) and that is already
the question of ethics)-deception of readers and advertisers, which should
be avoided.
3. News media acting like a judge
(14.04 -12.05.93.) Weekly “Estonian Age” published
a list of names of persons who have been supposedly working for KGB. The
source was not reliable.
Council decided: any media could publish record that
might harm someone, but only if the source is reliable and without commentaries
that give the readers impression that all the facts are proved. Media organization
should not act as an institution of justice (court).
Publication of such material may be harmful for media
freedom.
4. Death in media
(3.05 95 - 7.06 95) A student of theology died.
He has had personal problems, he has been drinking a lot of alcohol last
years. But it was strictly his private matter. A daily “_htuleht” published
an insulting article about the death of that student and about
other students of the faculty of theology of Tartu University calling them
all alcoholics.
Council decided: anyone has no right to insult publicly
a dead person, especially if that person was a private person without any
public importance. Journalist should also think, whenever one dies, somebody
grieves. Journalist should be very delicate in such circumstances.
The insult of the students of theology is more a legal
question, but as the information was totally untrue (and was published
in on news page), this case is “totally bad journalistic practice.”
5. Protection of sources
(22.09.94 - 22.09.94) Police demanded a journalist
to publish the names of his information sources.
Council decided: a journalist should not publish his/her
information sources if he/she has promised the confidentiality.
6. Identity of sources
6.1. (14.12 94 - 22.02. 95. ) A daily “P€hap€evaleht” published
news about death of a newborn in a hospital because someone had mixed pharmacons.
The source of information remained uncertain, newspaper
published only a commentary of someone from hospital.
Council decided: news which could create public fear
should be “completed”. The information sources should be identified in
the story and one-side commentaries should be avoided.
(See also: art.1 “Truth and correction of mistakes”)
6.2. (9.11.94 - 14.12.94) Estonian Russian daily published
an article about the catastrophe with ferry “Estonia” in October 28th 1994.
In the article it was said, that specialists have said,
that the catastrophe happened because the crew of the ferry was not professional
enough. Names of these specialists were not mentioned, nor did the journalist
mention on what grounds (facts) these conclusions were made.
Council decided; this is a manipulation and deception
of readers. Even more: to accuse those who can not defend them any more,
especially if no facts ground these arguments is unethical.
7. Translations
(13.01 - 16.02.94) A Russian language daily
translated an article from Estonian-language daily and added a negative
commentary. The authors of an original article had promised to their sources
that the article will be published in a newspaper that have Estonian audience.
The Russian language daily did not tell the authors that they will publish
the article.
The authors of the original article, two young journalists,
complained that their image was damaged.
The Council decided: There are no mistakes in the translation,
but the context has really been changed. It is true that the Russian readers
have not got the true picture about the journalist’s intentions.
The translation should not be put into another context
and if the commentary is changing the original context it should be deleted.
It would be good if any newspaper that is going to translate a material
from any other paper, should contact with the authors of original text.
In this case, the council did not agree who is responsible
for those people who gave interviews knowing that their words will be published
in certain newspaper in certain context.
8. One journalist /newspaper blaming another
(27.09.94- 8.12.94); (1.11.94 -22.02.95); (30.11.94-
10.05.95); (5.12.94.- 10.05.95); (2.05-7.06.95) Council decided:
media organizations and journalist should not blame each other using the
mass media channels. It would be better to establish a Court of Honor at
the Union of Journalists. There should be kept a clear difference between
media critics and blaming. Analytical media criticism is welcomed.
The Council is not designed to act like a jury between
media organizations and journalists.
9. Publishing the names of those who have been arrested
(9.11.94-14.12.94) A daily published each week an
overview of crimes and those who have been arrested. The information was
published because there was a strong public interest.
A long discussion was held in Press Council about this
case. The main question that was raised was: is it a good practice to publish
the names in connection with any crime before the court has decided about
one’s guilt - even if there is a strong public interest and need for such
type of information?
Then the second question raised: as the information
comes from prosecutor, and newspaper can not control the list, who is practically
responsible for publishing it?
Council decided to ask State Prosecutor ‘s opinion.
The State’s Vice Prosecutor answered to the Council that according to the
law one can publish a list of those who have been arrested if it is clearly
shown that they have only been arrested, not accused.
So the question was legally clear.
Again the Council had a long discussion: is it ethical
to link one’s name with a crime publicly.
Finally the Council built a bridge between the two loyalities:
to society and to person ‘s honor. The final decision was: newspaper can
publish information about crimes, because of strong public interest, but
should add a clear and significant note: “If anyone who has been mentioned
in this article has later found not guilty, newspaper will publish this
information immediately if he/she would like it.
10. References to information sources
There have been some topics where the Council has
not given a clear decision but published an article in a daily or in its
own publication to give broader overview about the problem.
1. Hidden advertising. (9.11 94 - 14.12 94)
2. Use of pseudoname.(19.01.95 - 10.05. 95)
Both of the topics included several other problems.
Hidden advertising is: ads or text that is not marked as advertising
but which clearly carries a function to advertise a service, goods or a
company. Journalists or media organization may get money or better price
etc. for promoting good image for a company, service or product with a
help of such type of material. Sometimes it is just a PR text which is
presented like news. It is a deception of an audience of that media channel
and deception of a consumer.
One magazine (Magneet) have just an intention to publish
ads, PR text and information in mixture. Council decided that the best
reaction against that type of journalism is to “educate media consumers”.
The people should know, that if they are reading the magazine they are
used as advertising targets.
The problem of using pseudonyms was linked with strong
accusation problem.
A company accused one Estonian Daily that it has published
three “letters to the editor” which were very critical about a new service
of that company. The head of the company made an investigation and after
that claimed, that these letters were fabricated by the daily who has the
same type of interests (selling the same type of information service) on
the same market. The editor of chief of the daily answered that a newspaper
should protect the confidentiality of their sources.
Council had a long discussion about the problem and
the final decision was that as Press Council has no reason to believe one
or another side, the problem should be put on public discussion.
The main problem was: in what circumstances news organization
should protect the confidentiality? If the information source/author of
a letter has nothing to worry about what will happen afterwards the publication
of his letter/opinion or information he holds, a news organization should
prefer clear identification of its source.
The protection of confidentiality of information source
should not be misused.
If a news organization publishes a strong accusation
(and three critical letters is strong accusation) there should be given
an opportunity for replay or comment for those who are accused in the same
number/program.
Both of the principles serve the rights of readers to
get nonbiased information and not to be manipulated by media organizations.
The cases that have been discussed in the Council does
not reflect all the problems of Estonian media. The Council has been thinking
how to make the functions of the Press Council more clear for the members
of public. We believe, that the base for good journalistic standards is
widespread knowledge about these standards.
Halliki Harro
Department of Journalism, Tartu University
Legal Controversy Concerning the Ban
on Tobacco and Alcohol Advertising Continues
Lithuanian Parliament recently passed The Control of
Alcohol Act and The Control of Tobacco Act. Both laws prohibit all kinds
of advertising of tobacco and alcohol products in Lithuania.
A group of Lithuanian parliament members are going to
apply to the Constitutional Court with a request to investigate if new
Lithuanian laws regulating control of alcohol and tobacco correspond to
the Constitution. They think the Control of Alcohol Act, Control of Tobacco
Act and Resolution of the Government on Control of Alcohol Advertising
adopted in years 1995 and 1996 do not meet requirements of articles 25,
29, 46 of the Constitution.
The Control of Alcohol Act and the Control of Tobacco
Acts use term “advertising” very broadly and practically prohibit any dissemination
of information about products of alcohol and tobacco. For instance, the
Control of Alcohol Act recognise as advertising information about production,
import and selling of alcohol and tobacco and information about glass containers,
restaurants and so on.
Part 1 of Article 25 provides that: a person has the
right to have certitudes and to express them freely. Part 2 provides that:
nobody can hinder a person from searching out, obtaining, and disseminating
information and ideas. Part 3 provides that: the freedom to express certitudes,
the freedom to get and to disseminate information can not be limited in
other way than by law if it is necessary to protect human health, pride
and dignity, private life, morals or to defend constitutional order.
The critics of the controversial acts contend that categorical
prohibition of alcohol and tobacco advertising and prohibition to disseminate
any information about products of alcohol and tobacco by the acts are anticonstitutional.
They argue that prohibition of any information about products of alcohol
and tobacco ignores the right of the common consumer to choose products
of better quality. They consider advertising of alcohol and tobacco must
be restricted according to Part 3 of Article 25 of the Constitution, but
not must be banned at all.
The group of parliamentarians consider Part 3 of Article
30 of the Alcohol Act lawfully incorrect. It gives the right to decide
what is advertising of alcohol or tobacco, the right to control this advertising
to the Government of Republic of Lithuania. Part 3 of Article 25 of the
Constitution provides that right to express certitudes can not be limited
in other way than by law. Resolutions of the Government are not laws.
Part 2 of Article 29 reads that: nobody is allowed to
limit human rights or give privileges based on gender, race, nationality,
language, descent, social status, religion or beliefs of a man. The group
of parliamentarians think that according to this, people who condemn consumption
of alcohol and smoking must not have privileges comparing to people of
other opinion about alcohol and tobacco.
The critics of Lithuanian laws concerning control of
alcohol and tobacco say these laws prohibit the dissemination of information
about legally sold products of alcohol and tobacco, information about their
producers and importers, information about quality, production technology,
chemical and other characteristics of products. They draw attention to
the fact that the largest customers of alcohol and tobacco ads are producers
of internationally recognised products that are of the higher quality.
They assert the laws give no chance for Lithuanians to choose products
of the better quality.
Part 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution provides that:
the state regulates economical activity in a way that it serves to
the welfare of the nation. Advertising is very important for production
developing in free market economy. Producers of alcohol and tobacco pay
taxes and serve to national welfare according to the group of parliamentarians.
The producers of alcohol and tobacco having no right to advertise have
difficulties in their business and thus pay less taxes. The group of parliamentarians
think restriction of activity of these economic subjects do not meet demands
of society.
Rytis Juozapavius
Institute of Journalism, Vilnius University