RIGA – I disagree with Juris Kaza about this week’s decision of the Riga court to sentence to 18 months Andris Jordans, a self-described neo-Nazi, for spewing a lot of hatred toward gypsies and Jews at a forum in Riga. A YouTube video showed him calling gypsies and Jews not human at all and acknowledging that he would destroy them if he had a chance.
The Russian-language press ripped up on the case, claiming that the Latvian government cares about inciting hatred only when it comes from a Russian person. They called it a discrimination and compared Jordans to another case of a fined Russian girl, who posted hating messages on Delfi, the Russian-language news site.
A couple of months ago, I argued on a site of the Shtab, the ultra-Russian Web site, that making a statement that Latvia ignores speech hatred was premature. Following the verdict, though, Russians on that same site couldn’t muster any praise for the Latvian justice system to give the man what he deserved. Because acknowledging the existence of a justice system from a marginalized group of Russian non-citizens would crush any opposition to the Latvian state.
But back to Kaza.
Regardless of what Jordans said, I believe that the state has no right to imprison him for his words alone. The government that punishes speech, even harsh and offensive speech, is more dangerous than any individual, deranged speaker.
Where is the line between a dangerous free speech and the exercise of a given right to free speech? If I were to advocate and prepare for the violent change in government, would that be considered a free speech? Would the government not have an inherent right to intervene? I’d say so. Any time the peace and national security is at stake the government ought to intervene.
Whether Jordan’s case was dangerous enough is another question, but Juris appears not to care much about the content of Jordan’s speech, but rather the fact that the speech occurred is sufficient to blame the government for infringing on rights to free speech.
That is all with more than a week to our bigger test of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly when Waffen SS veterans would proceed from the Dome Square to the Freedom Monument on March 16, commemorating the day when two divisions of the Latvian legion fought against the Soviets during the World War II. That is bound to attract the international attention. The city council already denied all but one request to march that Sunday morning and rightly so. Too many groups marching simultaneously for various causes can create a danger for peace and security of this tiny torn country. And that is what the government ought to protect.
I put a link on my blog post to yours, noting that there was a different opinion on the Jordans case by another English-language blogger.
Kaza has a point. Although Jordans’ case is obviously a morally difficult one and tests the limits of free speech, if you take the freedom of speech seriously, 18 months imprisonment is an excessive penalty.
If you were to advocate and prepare for the violent change in government, the government would certainly have a right to intervene, since you would be guilty of sedition. However, Jordans’ case doesn’t fall under ‘treason’ or ‘sedition’ by any stretch of the imagination. Its not obvious that Jordans actually did anything to obstruct other people’s liberties, nor that he was organizing a following that intended to violently challenge the powers that be.
Freedom of speech presupposes deeply uncomfortable viewpoints being voiced in public forums. We may not like what we hear, but presumably the alternative is far more unattractive.
To be sure, I dont think Jordans should have been allowed to just go about his day. As Kaza points out, freedom of speech has and should have its limits. However, actual imprisonment seems like a step too far.
I dont see what is to be gained by putting the guy into prison. Will he repent and come out a changed man? Unlikely. Will the public be any safer from his dangerous and subversive ideas? Nope. If the minds of the masses are really a genuine concern here, Jordans’ imprisonment is an ineffectual punishment which changes nothing. He is not the first or last to spew Neo-Nazi hatred.
If anything, putting him in prison only puts his ideas further into the public eye and makes him into a hero/martyr in his own circles. I bet he can’t wait to get out of jail, just to be hailed as the new king of Latvian skinheads and to pursue his ethnic hatred agenda with even more fervour. Any “American History X” scenarios seem unlikely.
Besides, you’d hope that most people are sane and that Jordans’ intolerant rants would fall on deaf ears. Jordans’ imprisonment is a bit of an inslut to the public at large, since it implies that this guy’s opinions could actually have been a genuine threat to public peace and tranquility i.e. we’re all amoral sheep, who have forgotten our own history.
Jordans’ should have been given a slap on the hand penalty and we ought to have continued with the rest of our days like adults, rather than self-righteously putting him behind bars just to show how seriously we take intolerance here in Latvia.
Martins, thank you for your thoughts. I watched the video before it was taken off YouTube and got a bit disturbed. I agree the 18-month sentence is a bit harsh, an administrative fine would have sufficed. What I objected in Kaza’s post was its disregard to the content of the speech in his condemnation of the court’s decision.
18 months is a lot for speech only, but it sends a message to other people to keep their mouths shut on this topic, and considering the bloodbath that neighboring Russia is going through because of this racist skinhead stupidity, it makes sense to put this individual through this trauma either to A. break him, or B. make him an tougher case, at which point he will really blow up and can be jailed for a much longer time. No matter what you do, this guy is going to continue to be a criminal. I can understand Latvians being angry with the English or Germans or Swedes, who are taking advantage, but to copy the road of Russian ethnic racism will be the end of Latvia. As a Latvian-American, its pretty sad what Latvia has turned into under unconstrained capitalism, in terms of being literally spread wide open for abusers. Letting it go fascist will be the ultimate mistake. The country already has to allow the visit by racist and criminals Russians every year.