Not private enough?: homophobic and injurious speech in the Lithuanian mass media

“NOTPRIVATEENOUGH”?

HOMOPHOBIC AND INJURIOUS SPEECH IN THE LITHUANIAN MEDIA

Introduction

PeriodicpublicopinionpollsconfirmthatLithuaniaisstilloneofthemosthomophobic societiesinEurope1 Oneofthelastrepresentative surveys conducted in 2006 showed that68.9 % of  Lithuanianswouldnotwanthomosexualsto work in schoolsand50% objectedto their working on  thepoliceforce. In thissurvey,46.6%of theLithuanianpopulationagreedwiththestatement “Homosexualsshouldbetreatedmedically”and615%, withthestatement“Iwouldnotwantto  belong toanyorganizationthataccepted homosexualmembers”2 Thesefiguresindicatethat homophobiaasanirrationalfear ofhomosexualpeoplewhich oftentranslatesinto negativeattitudes towardslesbians,gays, bisexualsandtransgender people(LGBT) isstillrather pervasivein  Lithuanian society. Asscholarsargue, homophobia can rangefrommild feelings ofdiscomfortinthe faceofhomosexualstostrong feelingsofhatreddirectedtowardsgaysandlesbians. 3 Repeated  publicattacksagainstLGBTpersonsinbotheveryday lifeand themassmediaalsopointtothe presenceof discomfort,fear andhatred toward LGBTpeople.

According to thepronouncementsof someLithuanian politiciansand publicfigures, LGBT peoplecanexpresstheir identitiesandsexualitiesonlyincertainplacesandspacesand to certain  people. They mustlead strictlycompartmentalizedprivateandpubliclives. Homosexuality is acceptable onlyas longas it remainsprivate

TheeventsofMay2007onceagain confirmedthisview. TheMayor ofVilniusdid notissue apermit for the Lithuanian LGBT to celebratethe “RainbowDays” andto display arainbowflag on  May 25 th Thiseventwas to beapart of the widercampaign“ForDiversity.AgainstDiscrimination” organizedbytheEuropeanCommissionTheEuropeanCommission andtheOfficeoftheEqual OpportunitiesOmbudsmanoftheRepublicofLithuaniacondemnedthisdecision by theMayor of  Vilnius

1 Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (Vilnius: OSI&Kimeta Society2002); Homofobijairdiskriminavimas Lietuvoje(Vilnius:LGL, 2003)

2 Thisrepresentative surveyentitled“Discrimination againstVariousSocial Groupsin Lithuania”wasconducted bythe  Market and Opinion ResearchCentre “VilmorusLtd.” on July 13­16, 2006

3 SheelaRajaandJoseph P. Stokes,“Assessing AttitudesTowardLesbiansand GayMen:TheModern Homophobia  Scale,”Journal ofGay, Lesbian,andBisexual Identity, 3(2)(1998): 114

Moreover,theLithuanianGayLeaguewasnotallowed to display socialadvertisements advocating toleranceandequalopportunities. Lithuaniandriversrefusedtodrivetrolleybuses carryingadvertisementwithsuchslogansas“Agay person canserveinthepolice,”“Alesbiancan  work inaschool,”and“Homosexualemployeescanbeopen andsafe”. Theseadvertisementswere  partoftheEQUALproject“OpenandSafeatWork.lt”conductedbytheLithuanianGayLeague and other organizations4 Once again, Lithuanian LGBT peoplewereforced toremain hiddenin their  privacyEventheslightestattempts atpublic visibility were prohibited

Introductiontothe Methodologyof thisSurvey

TheeventsofMay 2007werewidely discussedintheLithuanianmassmedia, particularly  thepressTheLithuanian massmediaareanotherproblematicareainwhichtheissuesofLGBT people areoften turnedinto controversy, scandal and abnormality

Thisbrief studywillfocuson discursivepatternsemployedbytheLithuanianpressandTV torepresentLGBTpeopleduring theperiodof February 13, 2006, to May29, 2007. Thefew television programsanalyzedhere fallintotheperiod fromMarch 9,2006, to May 21,2007. Four  mainstreamLithuaniandailiesLietuvosRytas(TheMorningofLithuania,thebiggestmainstream daily),Respublika(TheRepublic, adaily),L.T.(atabloid)andVakarožinios(TheEveningNews, a popular tabloid), Kaunodiena(TheDayofKaunas) andthefreedaily15min(15minutes) willbe examined. Thefollowing TVprogramswillbecovered:“Nomeda”(TV3), “Dvigubatiesa”(Double Truth, Channel5), “Savaitėsatgarsiai”(WeeklyEcho, LTV2) and“Srovės”(Currents,LNK). Some material fromtheInternet portalswww.balsas.lt. www.delfi.lt, www.lrytas.ltand www.bernardinai.lt willbe used inthissurvey. Thelatter isknownforits conservativeand outrightdiscriminatory views on homosexualityandhomosexualsThus, themainfocuswillbeontheLithuanianpressand  Internet portals

During theperiod ofFebruary 13,2006, to May28, 2007, Lithuanian newspapersand  Internetportalscarriedatotalof151newsstoriesandreportsabouthomosexuality and  homosexualsThegreatestnumber appearedinLietuvosrytas(21articles;hereafterLR).Vakaro  žinios (hereafter VŽ), apopular tabloid, wasnotfarbehind(20). L.T published14articles,

4 Dalia Gudavičiūtė, “Gėjųvaivorykštėnenušvito”[The GayRainbow did notShine],Lietuvosrytas[The Morning of Lithuania], May 12, 2007

Respublika(hereafterR) – 11newsreportsandarticles,Kauno diena(hereafterKD) ­­ 4, and the free weekly15 min 4reports.Seventy­seven reports andarticlesappeared onthe Internet.

First,letusdescribethediscursivepracticesknown ashatespeechRecommendationNoR  (97)20oftheCommittee ofMinisters oftheCouncil ofEuropetoMember Stateson“HateSpeech” provides the following definition:

Theterm“hatespeech”shallbeunderstoodtocover“allformsofexpression whichspread,  incite, promoteorjustifyracialhatred, xenophobia, anti­Semitismorother formsofhatred  basedonintolerance, including:intoleranceexpressedbyaggressivenationalismand  ethnocentrism, discriminationand hostility againstminorities, migrantsandpeopleof  immigrant origin.”5

Thus, in theclassicdefinition, “hatespeech”isan expressionwhichinciteshatred, particularly  racial, national, orreligious. Somespeechthatisoffensivedoesnotconstitutehatespeechalthough  itmaycontributetoprejudiceanddiscriminationagainstLGBTpeopleandotherminorities.

According to Helen Darbishire, “such speechwouldincludethetendency by mediatoreportthebad  newsaboutminoritieswhenitaffectsthemajoritypopulation (….)Equally,depicting membersof  minoritiesthroughclichédandstereotyped imagesmightbeoffensivebutisnotgenerallyregarded  as hate speech.”6

Thisstudy willdescribehowthetopicofhomosexualityandLGBTpeoplehasbeen  presentedandonwhatmodesofrepresentationtheLithuanianpressandTVhavebeendrawing  whentheyhaverepresentedgays, lesbians,bisexualsand transgender people. Notonly willit quantify thepresenceorabsenceofLGBT people and assesshow theyaredescribed in thepressand  onTV, butitwillalso presentacloser rhetoricalanddiscursiveanalysisofimagesassociatedwith  them Do anyinstancesof Lithuanianmediarhetoricqualify ashatespeech?Whatbeliefs,  knowledge, attitudes, norms andvaluesunderlie the mediarhetoriconLGBTpeople?

5 http://www.coe.int/t/e/humanrights/media/4documentaryresources/CM/Rec(1997)020&ExpMem_en.asp

6 HelenDarbishire, “HateSpeech: New European Perspectives,” http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1129

Patterns of MediaRepresentationof LGBT PeopleinLithuania

Itispossibleto distinguishseveralpatternscharacteristicoftheLithuanianmassmediain  representing LGBTpeopleItshouldbementioned,attheoutset, thatthesepatternsmaybe symptomaticofalargepart of the post­Communistspace.

Newson LGBTasUnimportant and OftenIrrelevant.

Mostpresscoverageof theissuesinvolvingLGBTpeopleusually consistsofshort, sporadicarticles covering aparticular event oroccurrence. Muchof thereporting isrecycledandrepetitive. Tabloids treattheissueofhomosexualityasifitwerethesubjectoflighthumorandentertainmentThe headlinesofthenewspapersandInternetportalsclaim:“InChina– theFirst TVProgramfor Gays” (wwwdelfi.lt, April5, 2007)or “FolktalesaboutGaysandLesbiansfor Children”(LR, March15,  2007). TheLithuanianpressis particularlyfondofWesternand evenRussiangayandallegedlygay  celebrityprofiles(for instance,ofElton JohnorDimaBilan)whichappear periodicallyonthepages of the dailies. 7 The relationship between taking care of one’sbodyand gayness isalsodiscussed.

TheIssuesofLGBT as Related to Controversy and Scandal.

TheLithuanianpresstendstoplaceLGBTpersonsinthecontextofsex sensationalismandscandal and frame stories abouttheminterms ofcontroversy,violenceanddeviance. Press reportsandsome TVprogramsdemonizegays,lesbians, bisexualandtransgender peopleandportraytheir  relationships, livesand lifestylesasan aberration. Itissuggestedthattheyareevilcreaturestobe despised. Theheadlinesof sucharticlestellitall:“FightandIntriguesintheLesbianCommunity” (LR, October 2, 2006), “PolicewillInvestigate aLecture on Homosexuality” (LR, March 24, 2007) 8  and“APersonwhohas notChanged hisSex WantsaMillion”(LR, July25, 2006).Thelatter article scandalizestheimportantissuesof genderreassignmentin LithuaniaItdescribesatranssexual personwhosuedLithuaniafor notallowing her to completeagenderreassignmentprocessA womanwanting tochangeher sex filed acomplaintwith theEuropeanCourtofHumanRights againstLithuaniaandwasinvitedtostate her demandstothegovernmentduring anopen hearing in  Strasbourg. Insuchscandalousincidents, mostoften thenegativeattitudesofrespondents, political figuresor ordinary Lithuanian citizens arecited.

7 See, forinstance, L T, February 2, 2007.

8 This reportfeatures the US. lecturer ScottLivelyand hishomophobic presentation inKaunas

Homosexuality as a Diseaseand anUnnaturalDeviantPractice. TheLithuanianmassmediapresenthomosexualityasanunnaturalpracticeunacceptabletomost people. Thisimpliesthat hatredandmistreatmentofgaysbased onaperceived threatto culturaland  religiousnormsisnatural. ThetabloidVakarožinios(VŽ) in particular supportsthisview.Vakaro  Žinios journalistsoftenusethewords„pervert”and„capon”intheheadlinesoftheir articles “PervertsdonotAttracttheAttentionofthePolice”(aboutthegay club“Men’sFactory,” VŽ,  November7, 2006), “ThereisnoPlaceforPervertsintheArmy”(abouttheheadoftheU.S.  GeneralCommand,VŽ,March15,2007),“ThePolishPrime­Minister – SupporterofCapons”(VŽ,  March7, 2007),“LithuanianwouldnotElectCapons[totheParliament]”(VŽ, December 8, 2006)  and “Capons[gaymales]DemandFemaleVaccination”(VŽ, February 6,2007) areusualheadlines for thisnewspaper.Heregay malesarecalled caponsandpseudo­men LT,anotherLithuanian  tabloid, describedone of the Lithuanian gayportalscalling somearticlespublished there “amockery  ofpeople of normalorientation.”Itissymptomatic thatit cited one of theLithuanianpoliticians who  openlyridiculedLGBTpeopleandcomparedthemtozoophiles:“Welack only alawdefiningwith  whatanimalspeoplemay haveintercourse”(L.T.,February 8, 2007). Thisandmany otherarticles implyan inevitablerelation betweenhomosexualsandzoophiles. Thewriter V. V.Landsbergis(the sonofthefamousLithuanianpoliticianVytautasLandsbergis)alsoputgayparadesandanti­family  policiesthatLGBTpeoplesupposedly advocateinthecontextofzoophiliaAccording tohim, “in  thewholeworld, theanti­family, i. e.gayparadesetc., becomesmorepopular. Itseemsthatsoon  marriagebetweenhumansandanimalswillbelegalized…”(www.delfi.lt,April18, 2007). The commentator oftheconservativenewsportalwww.bernardinai.ltArūnas Pečkaitis wrote:

Perhapsthebiggestcrime– andIsayitboldly – occurred whenhomosexuality was excludedfromthelistofdisorders If wecallasick personapatientitdoesnotmean  thatweassaulthimThefirst stepto recovery isrecognition thatyouaresick[Bycalling  himsick] youshowhimyour sensitivity, compassion andcare(“What‘sNextafter the Legalizationof Pedophilia,”June 6, 2006)

Calling LGBTpeoplesick,thiswriter expresseshismostsincere“compassion”for themThe conflationoftheissuesof homosexuality, drugaddiction, alcoholismandprostitutionisrather  commonintheLithuanian tabloid press. Homosexuality isconsideredanutmostevil. VŽ

repeatedly quotesright­wing extremistswho comparegayclubsandbarstotheclubsof  murderers, pedophiles, andzoophiles.

SomeTVprogramsfollowthesametrend:theinvestigativejournalismprogram “Srovės”(Currents,7:15p. m., May21, 2007)attemptedtocover thecontroversialeventsof  May 2007in Vilnius, including theVilniusMayor’sbanning ofthepublicaction “Wearefor  allcolorsoflife”Thehostoftheshowcalled theevents“funny spectacles”andrecited  excerptsfromsomeinternetencyclopediainwhichhomosexuality isregardedasaperversion  along withzoophilia, pedophilia, necrophiliaandothers. Theinterviewswith different respondents(among theman MPwhosupportsLGBTrights) were intermingled withshocking  imagesof gay prideparades Eroticor pornographicimagery usedtoframeaseriousissueof  publicparticipationandpublicitynotonlytrivializedtheissuesunderdiscussion butalso  portrayed LGBTpeoplein sexualizedandsexistwaysGiving thelimitedcredibilitytoLGBT peopleinthepublicarena, thisprogramemphasizedtheir allegedthreatto theheterosexual population.

Itcan beconcludedthatthisdiscursivepattern evidentintheLithuanianpressand on  television comesclosest tohate speech and theincitement of hatred andintolerance.

Homosexuality as Something Exoticand Strange

Thisdiscursivepattern iscloselyrelatedtotheabovediscussedmodeofrepresentationThe Lithuanian pressand particularly television usually focuson theexoticandexaggeratedsidesof  LGBTpeople’slives, suchasgay prideparades, MardiGrasand other festivities. Even serious topicsdiscussed on talkshowsareusuallyinterlacedwith“exotic”imagesfromLGBTfestivals.  Journalistssneakintogay andlesbianbarsanddescribethemasstrangeand fear­inspiring (LT, January15, 2007)They alsofollowLithuanian celebritieswho frequentgay bars(L.T.,January29,  2007) orfocusonEurovision asagaycontest(“Eurovision – GayFiesta,”LR,May12,2007). The dearthofserious, comprehensiveand“normal”representationsofgayandlesbiancharactersmay  suggestthat such representationswould disruptcultural normsand televisual codes

Homosexuality as Linkedto Criminality

Somereportson LGBTpeopleareincludedinthe“criminal chronicles,”for instance, areportabout themurderofagaymale(LR, February17,2007) orareportaboutamanallegedlyraping another

man(“AcquaintancebetweenGaysEndedinaScandal,”LR, February 23,2006). Moreover,the pressoften associateshomosexualityandpedophilia. Ascribing to homosexualsaperverted interest inchildren,theLithuanianpresscontributestothemobilizationofanti­gay sentiments Consequently,homosexualscannotbetrustedwithchildren, whoshouldbeprotected from homosexualpropaganda. Therepeatedlabeling ofmalehomosexualsaspedophilesandpederasts servestounderlinethepathologicalcharacterofhomosexualityandtoincitefearsandanxietiesin  readersItisnotsurprising that,according tothe2006 populationsurvey, 689% ofLithuanians wouldnotwanthomosexuals to work in schools.

Lithuanian newspapersandInternetportalsreportwithgreatpleasureanyincidentinwhich  LGBTpeople arecallednames or degraded (forinstance, inthereport“LatvianCardinalReferredto  GaysasProstitutes”[wwwbalsaslt,May10,2007] homosexualityiscalledan“unnaturalformof  prostitution”).

Conspiracy Theories. Homosexuals not as Victimsbut as Oppressors.

Another pervasivetrendintherhetoricaboutLGBTpeople, particularlygays, isallegationsthatthe very activehomosexuallobbyinLithuaniaisconnectedtoandfinancedby theinternationalgay  lobby. Itisalsoallegedthatinfluentialhomosexualsaredoing favorsforeachother. Theexistence ofakindofglobalgayconspiracyisimplied inthiskindofpublication. Twoyearsago amarginal politicalgroupentitled theUnion for Morality andNation (Sąšauka“Uždorąir tautą”) distributed,  inpaper and ontheInternet, a leaflet withthefollowing text:

“AppealtoLithuaniansociety.Homosexualsarestarting afull­scaleattack. Gay  parades havealready takenplaceinBucharest, Warsaw, RigaandTallinnGayshave beentold  to taketothestreetsofEasternEuropeancapitals…. Lithuaniangaysreceivehundredsof  thousands ofeurosin supportfromabroad Itis obviousthatsoonthey[Lithuanian gays]will try toorganizeaparadeinVilnius…WewilldemandthattheCityof Vilniusnotissue permissiontoLithuanian gaysto march onVilniusstreets Ifyou don’t agree withthespread  ofthissin, let’sgatheronFriday, September 30, at2pmattheSquareofEurope For  Healthy Youth, Strong Family andChildren’sRights”

A leaflet with similarrhetoric wasdistributed during another rally of this groupon May25, 2007 “Standup to homosexualpropaganda!

Weareresponsiblefor our homeland!Democracyisthepowerof themajority, nota dictatorshipby minorities!If thegovernment,pressured by foreign lobbyists,  allows itselftopromoteideasopposed tothevaluesofthemajority,itcan nolonger representthenation!  Andifthegovernmentpasseslawstosuppresscriticismsoftheseideasitmeansdictatorship!Let’s

notallowtheconcealmentofdictatorship throughmisleading tolerance. Such toleranceisinfacta surrender to imminent evil. It[tolerance] cannot belegitimized anddeclared good!

Partisans, exiles, bravemen ofour nation didnotfightandsuffer forthefreedomofour  homelandfor itto besold again to an imported ideology of evil!

PeopleofLithuaniatakeresponsibility for your country!Buildsolidarity withother  familydefenders inPoland, Latvia, SpainandFrance! Stop the sodomy aggression!

TheLithuanianpressechoessimilar rhetoric:onMay 7, 2007,Respublikaclaimed“The InfluenceofGaysinLithuaniaisIncreasing.”According tothisarticle, moregaysoccupymost prestigiousprofessions andexpelfromthem“normal” heterosexualpeople Vakarožiniosstated that “TheArmy ofPervertsAttacksPoland”(VŽ, March20, 2007). Similarly, inJuly 2006 the newspapersreported thatLGBTpeopletriedtocapturetheLithuaniancity of Klaipėda(“Perverts WanttoCaptureKlaipėda,”VŽ,July28,2006). On April4,2006, thepoliticalscientistAndrius Navickaswrotethatsupportersof “equalrightsandopportunities”werepreparing foranewattack  ontheheterosexualmajority (“AreSexualMinoritiesmoreEqualintheFaceof theLaw,” www.bernardinai.lt). Inhisarticle“GoodLuckin Governing,”DomantasRazauskasridiculed  LGBT peoplewhoopenlydemand therighttobepublicandwanttobeelected to governing bodies (L.T., November 10, 2006).

Homosexuality, Familyand theNation

Inmediarhetoric,homosexualityismostfrequentlyrelatedto the problem offamily andnation.The issueoffamily ascentraltothereproductionofsocietyand socialorderfeatures in debatesabout homosexualityandtheregulationof gay, lesbian, andtransgender practicesandrepresentations. Itis alleged thatLGBTpeople want todestroy the“normal” familyand thenation

TheLithuanianpressoften quotestheopinionsofhighChurchofficialsontheissueof  homosexualityand thefamily (“ArchbishopSTamkevičius:‘TheChurchCondemnsHomosexual Relationships’,”VŽ, November26, 2006). ItpresentstheCatholicChurch asadefenderofmorality  andfamilyvalues,contrastingitwith“deviant”and“unacceptable”homosexualsDuring the celebrationsofIndependenceDay in2007 CardinalAudrysJuozasBačkisstated:“Hiding behind  tolerance, weletfamilysubstitutestoprosper amongus; andwerefer to themin the neutral termsof  partnershipand union, among themeven asame­sex union. Wecreateconditionsfor the irresponsiblesatisfactionofdesiresandselfishness”(LR, February17,2007).Homosexualunions

andhomosexuality hereare conflatedwithirresponsibilityandselfishness. Theright­wingMP politician IrenaDegutienėproclaimed that“wehavenever acknowledgedand[will] never  acknowledge partnerships; we[will] neveracknowledgegay marriage because itisnot a realfamily” (a reportfromthepressconference“WhatFamilyPolicydoesLithuaniaNeed?”www.delfi.lt,April 25, 2007).

Thediscourseon familyvaluesprominentinLithuaniaregulatesanddistinguishes “appropriate”Lithuaniansfromothers(particularlyLGBTpeople). Inthepublicsphere, afightfor  thefamily isoftenpresentedasafightfortheLithuanian nation. Itisassumedthatthehealthofthe nation or society isdirectly dependentonitsabilitytoexcludewhatisconsideredunhealthy and  deviant, namelyLGBTpeopleandotherminoritiesTheMPoftheHomeland Union (Conservative PartyintheParliament) VAleknaitė­Abramikienėopenlyproclaims:“Agayandlesbian paradein  Lithuaniawould humiliatethe Lithuaniannation”Moreover, shearguesthateventheplanned2007  ILGA­EuropeconferenceinVilniuswill“degradetheLithuaniannationandtheopinionsof the majority of the Lithuanian people”(www.delfi.lt, November 4, 2006).

Onefeaturearticleentitled“FromAllegedLovetotheRuinsof aFamily”andpublishedin Lietuvos rytas onJune17, 2006, deservesparticularattention.Theauthor quoteswomenwho  supposedlysuffer becauseoftheir gayhusbands.Throughoutthearticle, thestereotypesofgay  pedophileand perverted gay arerepeated.Gay menare symbolically describedasvampiressucking  thebloodoftheirpoorwivesTheauthor presentswomenseeking“traditionalfamilyvalues”as victims ofgay men.

Itissuggestedthatstateauthorities,followingtheexampleofcrisiscentersforabused  women, createcentersforwomenwho havelived or stilllivewith gaymen (husbands). Thejudicial basisdefendingsuchwomenshouldalsobecreated, arguestheauthorLaimaLavasteThearticle endswithaverysymptomaticsentence:theauthor statesthatsooner or later Lithuanian societywill have“toanswer thequestion:howtodefendlegally andmorally therightsand dignity ofthose humanswhovaluetraditionalmarriagebetween amanandawoman”(LaimaLavaste, “From AllegedLovetotheRuinsoftheFamily. ThreeWomenDaredtoTell“Lietuvosrytas”abouttheir  Marriageto Gay Men,”LR, June 17,2006). Manipulating thewell­establishedstereotypes aboutgay  men,thearticleoffersasolution:inorder todefendthenationand thefamily, itisnecessary to  identify gayswhooppressheterosexualwomenandisolatethemfromsocietymorally, legallyand  perhaps physically. Onlythis actcould savetheLithuanian nation.

Homosexuality and the IssuesofPrivacy and Openness

TheLithuanianpressoftendescribeshomosexualitynotasanissueofhumanrightsandcitizenship  butasanissueof“privatemattersofwhatonedoesinbed.”Itprivatizestheissueofsexual orientation suggesting thatLGBTpeopleshouldremainintheprivatesphere and shouldbeopen  aboutthemselvestoaverylimitednumberofpeopleAmong homophobicLithuanian politicians,  theabove­mentioned MPIrenaDegutienė is quoted assaying:“IamnotagainstgaysbutI wish they  wouldnotdemonstratetheir views”i.e. wouldnotshowpubliclywhatthey really are(L.T.,  February 13, 2007)When agreater number of articlesor newsstoriesonLGBTpeopleandthe issuesof sexualorientation appearinthemedia,publicandpoliticalfiguresstarttocomplainthat massivepropaganda abouthomosexuality hasstarted

Oneoftheindicationsoftheissueofprivacy/opennesswasanation­widescandalabout photographsdepictingnon­traditionalformsofpartnership andfamily, among themgay andlesbian  ones. In February 2006, thecuratoroftheJuodkrantėArtCenter KristinaDanilevičienėdidnot allowthesephotostobeexhibited.TheLithuanianGayLeaguesubmittedacomplainttotheOffice ofEqualOpportunitiesOmbudsman. TheOmbudsperson AušrinėBurneikienėissuedawarning to  thecuratoroftheCenterfortheviolationoftheLawof EqualTreatment. However,thisdecision  metwithastrong outcryfromtheCatholicChurch andeven somepoliticians. Theystatedthat society, andparticularlychildren, should beprotectedagainst“homosexualpropaganda.”Some MPs suggested thatthey wouldinitiate changes inthelawsregulating thedisseminationofinformation by  including aclauseprohibiting“homosexualpropaganda.”Privacy, silenceand the“closet”arethe only solutionsofferedbythesepolitical figures andChurchofficials.

PositiveRepresentations of LGBT People

Itwould beunfair tosaythattheLithuanianpressandtelevisiondo notpresent“positive” representationsofLGBTpeopleAtleast20articlesduring thisperiodfocusedon thecomplex  experiencesof being gay, bisexualor transgender, theissuesofgaysinthearmy andphysical violenceagainsthomosexualsinLithuania(forinstance, “DoubleLife,”KD, November 18, 2006; “Transsexualwhohaschanged hisSex DemandsanewID,”LR, March7, 2007;„BrutalExecution  for BeingHomosexual,”www.alfa.lt, August9, 2006). DuetotheactivitiesofLithuanianLGBT activists,particularly theLithuanianGay Leagueandtheprojectsconductedby them,thecoverage

of“serious”topicsonLGBTpeoplehasincreased in thelastcoupleof years(“HomosexualsFeel Discriminated against at Work,”www.delfi.lt, March13, 2007).

ThesamecouldbesaidaboutinternationalnewsonLGBTissues. Themaindailies,  particularlyLietuvosrytas, usually copyinternationalnewsfromforeignpublicationsandpresentit inasensitiveandcomprehensiveway (research on homosexuality,gaymarriageissues, homophobia inthearmy,etc.)Another veryimportanttrend consistsofthepolemicalarticlesofLithuanian  intellectualssuchasNidaVasiliauskaitė, AndriusBielskisandothersTheirarticlesareusually  postedonInternetportals(wwwdelfilt, www.alfalt, www.lrytaslt)andfocuson in­depth issuesof  LGBTpeoplein a both positive and polemical way.

Suchtalk showsas“Savaitėsatgarsiai”(WeeklyEcho, LTV2, severalbroadcastsfocusing on  homophobiaand “Lithuanianvalues”, LGBTrights, etc.), “Nomeda”(TV3;theMarch 2, 2006,  broadcastaboutbeing agay andtheApril13, 2006broadcastaboutmenwhowanttoundergo  genderreassignment)and “Dvigubatiesa”(DoubleTruth, Channel5, theJune4, 2006broadcast abouthomophobiaandother phobiasthatheterosexualshold) attempttodiscussLGBTissues sensitivelyandcomprehensively. They allowfor afull­fledgeddiscussionofopposing viewsand  positions.

Conclusions

Themassmediaplay acriticalroleinthedepiction of LGBTpeopleArticlesand broadcasts thatdealwiththeissueof homosexuality,bisexualityandtransgenderismhelptoshapethewaythe Lithuanian publicthinksaboutLGBTpersonsMediarepresentations not onlyreflectbutalso create collectiveunderstanding, statushierarchies, resistance, and theconflictsthatexistin Lithuanian  culture

As ouranalysisdemonstrates, theLithuanian press andTV often exacerbatehomophobicand  heterosexistdefinitionsof LGBTpeopleAlthoughitcannotbeclassifiedashatespeech,itisan  immenselyhomophobicdiscourseor “injuriousspeech.”ThisspeechattemptstohumiliateLGBT peopleand toassignasubordinateplacetothem. Namecalling and violentabusiveterminology  (“capons”and“perverts”)fillthepagesofLithuaniantabloidsLGBTpeoplearecategorized  negativelyanddescribed asmorallydegenerate. Inmany cases, theLithuanianmassmediadefine gaypeoplecompletely by their “problem”andconstructhomosexuality toappear morallywrong.

SomeTVprogramsmakeascandalof theissuesofhomosexuality, bisexualityandtransgenderism.  LGBTpeopleareportrayedinsexist,sexualizedandsometimespornographicways(frequent imagery fromeroticmovies, gay prideevents, etc.) LGBTpeople, andespeciallygay men,arestill strongly associatedwithsexualpromiscuityanddeviance. Thetendencytoridiculeanddiminish  LGBTpersonsisstillquiteobviousintheLithuanianmedia. Theyareplacedin theframeworkof  thedominantmediadiscoursesofheteronormativityandheteronormalcy. TheLithuanianmediaare  very slowinvalidating seriousnewsandreportsaboutLGBTpeopleSeriousrepresentationsof  LGBTpersonsareinfrequent. Thegay eventsandopinionscovered inthenewspapersandTVare  overwhelminglytrivializedItcanbearguedthatthemediacontributetotheoppressivediscursive reality of LGBTpeople

RepresentationsofLGBTpeopleintheLithuanianmassmediareproducedistinctive hierarchiesofnationand sexuality andconstructalowOtherinanoppositionalhierarchicalrelation  tothemajorityInthispresentclimate, homosexuality (andLGBTpeopleingeneral)iseitherbeing  erased andreducedorconstitutedas a “site ofradical homophobicfantasy”9 sinceit presentsathreat toestablishedsocialorder. Inmediadiscourse,itisassumedthatthe healthofthenationisdirectly  dependentonitsabilitytoexcludewhatisconsideredunhealthyanddeviant,namelyLGBTpeople.

“Portrayalsofminoritiesasdefilingandthreatening havefor long beenusedto ordersociety  internallyandtodemarcatetheboundariesofsociety,beyondwhichliethosewho donotbelong.”10

ItcanbearguedthatinmostcasestheLithuanian massmediaareinvolvedin adeliberateshaming  that results in “silent inequalities, unintended effects ofisolation, and the lackof public access.”11

Itissymptomaticthatwhenasked aboutthepositionoftheLithuanianmassmediatowards homosexualpeople, Lithuanian citizens respond in the following way:

9 JudithButler, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,”inDianaFuss,Inside Out:LesbianTheories, GayTheories (NewYork: Routledge,1991),p 20

10 David Sibley,Geographies of Exclusion:Society and Difference in the West (New York: Routledge, 1995), p49 11 MichaelWarner,TheTroublewithNormal:Sex, PoliticsandtheEthicsof QueerLife(Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard  UP, 1999), p. 7

Chart no.1. HowdoyouevaluatethepositionoftheLithuanianmassmediatowards homosexuals? 12

Other

Mass media are overflowing with information abouthomosexuals

Offer not enough informationabouthomosexuals

Choosescandalous information about  homosexuals tendentiously Promoteintolerance towards people of different  sexual orientation

Present objective information about homosexual  people's lives

34.8%oftheLithuanian people saythattheLithuanianmassmediaarebiasedtowardshomosexual people, 7% say thatthemassmediapromoteintolerance towardsthem, and 15.7%state thatthere is notenoughinformationabouthomosexuals. Inall, 57.7%oftheLithuaniancitizensarenothappy  with themedia’s attitudetowards sexual minorities.

ThismediaanalysisandtheeventsofMay2007demonstratethatboththeLithuanian  politicalelitesandmediaprofessionalsstilldonotrealizethatastrong democraticcultureentailsa commitmenttopublicity,meaningfuldialogueanddebateAsthepoliticalphilosopherIrisYoung  correctlyemphasizes, “Nopersons,actionsor aspectsofaperson’slifeshouldbeforcedinto  12 The representative survey “DiscriminatiPRIVATEon against Various Social Groupsin Lithuania” (July 13­16, 2006)

privacy;and(b)nosocialinstitutionsorpracticesshouldbeexcludedapriorifrombeing aproper  subjectforpublicdiscussionsandexpression.”13 Thus, thequestionofpublicparticipation and  opennessremainscrucialfor Lithuanian LGBT peoplebecauseoftheir constantexclusion,silencing  and marginalization. Onceandfor all,theideashouldbeimplantedin themindsoftheruling elites andmediaprofessionalsthatsexualorientationisnotamatter of privateconcern. Itisanissueof  humanrights, firstof all, LGBT people’srightto have apublicidentity inavariety of publicspaces,  among themthemassmedia, withoutthefearofbeing stigmatized,repressed, ridiculedand  victimized.

13 IrisMarion Young Justice and the Politics ofDifference(Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990), p120