In the opposition

Censorship returned to Russia

July 17, 2012 Alexander Podrabinek

Does anyone know the case when the introduction of censorship would be explained by bad motives? To spite anyone or because you “look out”? No, the introduction of censorship is always justified by intentions by the most elevated, moral or, at worst, rational.

A day after the October Revolution of 1917, which then they began to pathetically call the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks issued a decree on the press, according to which the press authorities “1) called for open resistance or disobedience to the working and peasant government were subject to closing; 2) sowing the turmoil through a clearly slanderous perversion of facts; 3) calling for acts is clearly criminal, i.e. Criminal punishable in nature. " Over the next six months, commissars closed 470 opposition newspapers. Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin explained this frankly: "To endure the existence of these newspapers means to stop being a socialist."

The love of socialists for censorship is well known. In 1933, German National Socialists in 1933, already in March, established the Ministry of Education and Propaganda, which, led by Joseph Goebbels, began to introduce widespread censorship in the country. To begin with, Nazi student organizations, professors and libraries have compiled a register of dangerous books. On the night of May 10, 1933, the National Socialists staged a raid for libraries and bookstores throughout the country. They walked along the night streets in the light of torches, singing songs and burning books on huge stakes. In one night they burned more than 25 thousand books. Really radical censorship!

Of course, the State Duma, which adopted amendments to the law on information that approved the institution of censorship in Russia, is still far from communist or national socialist practice. But she is with a firm tie and with good speed goes in the right direction.

Some commentators believe that technically the law on restriction of freedom on the Internet is difficult. Others quite rightly note that national legislation is already providing for the judicial mechanism for the closure of objectionable Russian Internet resources based on, for example, extremism, drug propaganda or child pornography. This is true. Something, and there are enough powers to the Russian security forces. A generous legislator allows them to command the provider, to seize servers, select domain names, plant disloyal users.

However, there were two catchs. First: all operational investigative events could only be carried out in Russia. And to the great regret, people in uniform and non -humans in civilian clothes are by no means all Russian Internet resources are based in Russia. The second snag: a long bossal red tape is insanely annoying. After all, this is also humiliating - those who care about domestic morality and strict order to the defenders of the state were also ordered to go to court.

New amendments solve both problems. Any foreign resource can be blocked in Russia at the direction of the structures of the executive branch. Providers will be obliged to do this under pain of imprisonment or criminal prosecution. No court decisions are required for this. I don't like it - you can complain! Where? To court, of course! For example, in basmann.

An extrajudicial ban on information is censorship. There is no doubt about the interpretation. And there is no doubt about the anti -constitutionality of such measures. The Constitution of Russia, paragraph 5 of Article 29, reads: “Freedom of the media is guaranteed. Censorship is prohibited. "

Argumentation for the introduction of censorship is ordinary - the interests of children, protecting them from information that harm their health and development. At the same time, one of the reasons for inclusion in the register of prohibited sites is the publication of “Materials with pornographic images of minors”, which is of interest for adults, and not for children at all.

Another reason is “announcements of attracting minors as performers to participate in spectacular events of a pornographic nature.” This falls under the action of several articles of the Criminal Code at once. Is the normal reaction of a normal law enforcement system to immediately remove unwanted content, and not to go out on these ads for criminals and bring them to the criminal court? Or is it too troublesome and not too profitable?

In the same way, the Criminal Code is persecuted by the promotion of drug use or their production and advertising of places of distribution. What would seem to not take advantage of the data from the Internet to combat crime? It's like a self -dodon, go and take them warm! Why throw all your strength to close the site, and not use the information that itself floats in lazy law enforcement? The answer is simple: they do not need this. They live on this, they feed from this. They do not intend to fight crime, they prefer to pretend that it is not. The abundance of sites with criminal content is evidence of unprofessionalism, helplessness and corruption of law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the best way out is to erase these sites. Yes, even then to say: if law enforcement officers really fought criminals, would the idea occurred to the police to take the police, publishing information about themselves on the Internet?

And yet, all these are local departmental interests. The main meaning of the amendments is that access to information is now limited not by the court, but by the censorship department. Now the government authorized by the government will decide which information is prohibited and which is not. The revival of official censorship is the most striking event of all the Duma generated in the legislative fever this summer.

It could be assumed that censorship on the Internet would not go further than criminally punishable by topics, but now it is clear that this is not so. A few paragraphs above I deliberately pulled away from the discussion of the degree of criminality of acts that fell under new amendments. Well, they are already in the Criminal Code, the right ones are wrong, but there are. However, the logic of censorship inevitably leads to the expansion of the list of prohibitions. The absence of a trial, even such a primitive as our current one, will lead to a rapid growth of prohibitions. Anything can get into the register of the forbidden. This is exactly what the Internet users are rightly afraid of who supported the protests of some large Internet resources against amendments to the law on information.

The fears that topics will fall under the ban, the discussion of which is neither a crime nor an offense are quite justified. Already now, one of the reasons for inclusion in the register of prohibited sites is the distribution on the Internet "Information on methods of committing suicide, as well as calls for suicide." Meanwhile, these actions do not entail either administrative or criminal liability. They are not prohibited by law. Therefore, permitted. Then on what basis to close sites?

This is not a problem of attitude to suicide. It will seem correct to someone to ban such information, no one, but in any case, this issue should be resolved by law. If the ban on the topic of suicide concerns only the Internet, then, then, it is possible to discuss the same on television, on the radio or at the rally? Then why is the Internet in a discriminated position? And what about the uniformity of the application of laws and constitutional legal norms?

The use of extrajudicial repressive norms leads to the final degradation of justice. It must be assumed that, hiding behind the hypocritical “concern for children”, the authors of the bill are Mizulin, Zheleznyak, Resulsky and Nilov, Shvetsov, Borzov, Bataline, Bychkov, Epifanov, Kuzmichev, Senatorov, Manuilov and Gerasimov - clearly realize the consequences of their initiative. The point is not in contradictions in the legislation, which are so full, but with their help there were even more. It's not about violations of the Constitution, which are obvious. And, of course, it is not a matter of children, on which our state is exactly the same as in all other citizens. For the authorities, the value of the law is that the instrument of authoritarian management is officially recreated and the Russians should now get used to living with censorship again. This is a qualitative change in our political life.

It was not by chance that I brought a complete list of the authors of the bill. The country must know its anti -Heroes! It must be added that on July 11, in the second reading of 448, the current state Duma deputies of the State Duma was supported by 441 deputies, and in the third - 434 (seven deputies, apparently, tired and went to sleep). There were no abstracts and voting "against". Not a single one! Including the Shutovsky opposition from “Fair Russia” and claiming leadership in the protest movement of deputies Ilya Ponomarev and the Gudkov family. Protests protests, and work with work! The revival of censorship is a serious matter, you will not see here.

In some surprising way, the law began to work even before he entered into force. He himself became the first victim! On the official Duma site “Automated system of ensuring legislative activity”, the text of the bill 89417-6 and information about its passage in parliament are not available. All other laws are available, but this one is not. Probably, in the interests of protecting children from information causing harm to their health and development. And this is only the beginning of a new era!

By the way, the first historically confirmed act of censorship in Russia belongs to the time of Baptism of Rus', when a ban on reading some books appeared. However, for a thousand years in the field of information spread, significant progress has been noted. The current authorities are unlikely to be able to make their “Register of Forbidden sites” of the 2012 model as effective as the “List of Refined Books” of 1073. Times are still not the same. Today, you can still block most users access to “seditious” sites, using the fact that our service providers are their own, Russian ones. It is quite simple to reach them. But the day is not far when publicly available and high -quality space technologies will be widely used for Internet access. Already today you can get access to the Internet via satellites, and not all of them are Russian. Of course, the speed is still small and expensive, but production does not stand still.

Putin's dear to the heart of the authoritarian state with an adjustable “iron curtain” enters into an acute contradiction with the idea of ​​globalization. And what is the most offensive, not only with the idea, but also with practice. Soon the Kremlin will finally be convinced of this. He simply does not have enough intellectual abilities or technological opportunities to withstand an open and developing world. Freedom on the network will definitely win!

Photo by RIA Novosti