On January 11, 2005, the Moscow edition of Argumenty i Fakty published an article by Marina Medvedeva, “If the printed word flies out, you won’t catch it,” which expressed concern about the spread of extremist literature in the city. In particular, the reason for writing the article was the journalist’s meeting with representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which, according to M. Medvedeva, “was recognized by the court as destructive and banned in the capital,” which is not true: the organization is deprived of registration, like many organizations , whose activities were not prohibited by anyone.
The author puts on the same level texts whose distribution is truly illegal (Mein Kampf or the Book of Monotheism recognized by the court as extremist) and texts that only seem to him “harmful”, but the distribution of which does not violate the law - the same texts of Witnesses or the organization "Brahma Kumaris" (for some reason calling them "satanic." However, no one has yet banned "statanists" in Russia, as well as their literature). The author complains that “ there are not enough operatives who could catch banned books on the streets (or rather, those that seem to be banned to the author - ed. ).”
It is worth adding to this that the article is illustrated with a collage depicting a stack of books with Mein Kampf in the foreground, which, of course, strengthens the analogy drawn by the author between Nazi literature and the texts of religious organizations, which are unsympathetic to the journalist.
Discussions on the topic of legal prohibitions of organizations and texts are a complex and legally ambiguous problem, which, in our opinion, should be approached very carefully. Meanwhile, in this article M. Medvedeva appears not as a journalist interested in discussing an important and relevant topic, but as an indignant layman who is not responsible for incorrect comparisons and direct factual errors. Meanwhile, it is precisely these not just incompetent, but unprofessional publications that form both negative stereotypes and incorrect legal ideas. And this, in turn, makes it difficult to discuss a truly pressing topic.
Sources