Should anti-Semites be shown on TV?

After the release of the program "To the Barrier!" with the participation of Albert Makashov, a discussion began in the press about the possibility and legality of providing time on the air for deliberately nationalist propaganda. We present a selection of opinions on this issue. Let us emphasize that opinions concerning not the assessment of recent anti-Semitic demarches, not the possibility of legal prosecution for inciting ethnic hatred, but the need and possibility of public discussion with radical ethno-nationalists, in particular, anti-Semites.

Alexander Melikhov , writer: “By entering into public debates of this kind, we only provide our enemies with the opportunity to provoke humiliated, poorly educated people into destructive actions, without having any way to prevent the consequences of these provocations. force, according to its rules of the game, we doom ourselves to defeat in advance .

Leonid Radzikhovsky , journalist: You can despise anti-Semites as much as you like, but you can't avoid discussions with them under the guise of contempt. Especially on such a question, where the vast majority of the country's population (very far from anti-Semitism) will say: yes, Makashov, of course, he is Makashov, but he speaks the truth!

Irina Petrovskaya , columnist: * "They told me: don't write about this program. Abomination. The week has passed. The train has left. I'm afraid, however, that this train will not leave for a long time. And I cannot remain silent when there is only talk everywhere: "Did you see? How can this be? Why?” ... It was not customary to publicly demonstrate anti-Semitism before. Previously, this need was met alone, "said the philosopher and culturologist Boris Paramonov. Those who voted for M. realized that now they can handle this need in a team of like-minded people. Television, having treated the public with a dish with a disgusting odor, worked like, excuse me, a laxative, which vomited from her insides the abomination that had accumulated over the years... They don’t discuss, they don’t argue with such types as M. unlike the British, who are interested from the shores of foggy Albion in the views of the terrorist Basayev, the views of M. are already well known. Basayev for the British, I repeat, is someone else's horror. M. is ours. , destroy, crush with great difficulty the sprouts of tolerance, tolerance, cultivated by normal people, which are few in our native space anyway.

If this is a restriction of freedom - I am "for" such a restriction! On one condition: that the TV channels themselves will limit their freedom, guided by ethical standards and a clear idea of what is more important for the interests of society: to give the floor to extremists and provocateurs or categorically cut them off from the air. For sanitary and hygienic purposes, so to speak. So that the stench of obscurantism doesn't blow into people's noses from the screen.*

Irina Khakamada , leader of the Our Choice party: "I believe that if a person is not in prison or in a madhouse, and even more so if someone has elected a person, and he still becomes a deputy or represents a party that has entered parliament, this means that this person has all the rights that are written in the Constitution, and therefore, to speak on television.

Yuri Bogomolov , columnist: "You can regret a lot. Including the fact that in general TV got involved in a controversy with everyday anti-Semites . "