Freedom of speech and dissent

In a recently published and very sensational interview http://avmalgin.livejournal.com/3682741.html, many saw exclusively “invaluable” information about who ordered Listyev. The value of this information seems to me to be low. On the one hand, Ernst’s words with the recorder turned off cannot be attached to the case, but on the other hand, now neither Listyev himself nor the identity of his customer are of interest to anyone after many years. Ernst’s words are much more important: “Do you remember what position NTV occupied in the first Chechen war? The Chechens there were great, but the federals were not clear. This position was deeply disgusting to me.”

Well, and everything else about censorship, which doesn’t seem to exist. The public is much less interested in this than Listyev’s customer. Why? But because the majority agrees with Ernst. Well, in fact, NTV gave incorrect, unsuitable information, which means that it was closed is not so bad. This position is generally characteristic of most modern “political figures” and ordinary citizens. They are not so much embarrassed by the fact that Article 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not function in the country, but by the fact that they personally do not have freedom of speech. Nemtsov and others like him during their time in the Duma had nothing against Limonov’s lack of freedom of speech, Navalny is absolutely not against Tesak’s lack of freedom of speech, and, say, the left does not object to Demushkin’s lack of freedom of speech. Everyone is interested in their personal freedom of speech. Well, this means that in the strong assumption that one of them will someday be in power, nothing new can be expected from them. Evil nationalists-communists-homosexuals-etc. are wrong, they see the historical moment incorrectly, which means they should be shut up. Here Ernst will come in handy, with his experience. But no, dear friends, it doesn’t happen like that. Freedom of speech either exists for everyone, or it doesn’t exist at all.

The moment “unacceptable” and “inadmissible” points of view appear, the fight against dissent, the fight against political trends as such, automatically begins. This creates a new index of banned books. First a point of view cannot be expressed, then it cannot be published. Then books with this point of view need to be burned (or flushed down the toilet, like Sorokin’s books). Well, where they burn books, they soon start burning people too. Well, or “toss it in the toilet,” taking into account modern realities.

My civic position is that before you seriously demand something from someone, you need to decide on your position and understand that freedom of speech is not selective. Any person has the right to any point of view and can express it freely. Otherwise, this is not freedom of speech, but ordinary fascism. Simply not national, as in the case of the Third Reich, but liberal, as in the case of Nemtsov, or kleptocratic, as in the case of modern government. There is no difference for dissidents.

Section 282 should be repealed because people cannot be punished for their opinions. Actions and only those actions should be punished. There can be no “thought crimes”; this is a terrible, monstrous practice inherited from the blazing fires of the Inquisition and the Gulag.

I categorically did not like the pre-dispersal NTV, I do not like the position of many political movements, I do not agree with many and in many ways. But this does not mean at all that people do not have the right to an alternative point of view. On the contrary, they do! Only people with different approaches to the world order can together create something useful in the state plan.

This only possible choice in favor of freedom of speech must be made, digested and accepted by every citizen and, in particular, every person involved in politics. Otherwise, unfortunately, no democracy will work. We need to come to terms with the aggressiveness of the free information environment, adapt to it and learn to coexist with it and in it. There is no other way except accepting and perceiving alternative points of view.