More attention to networks

The so -called "bill against the Internet and Finance" entered into force. In addition to the introduction of a new article in the Criminal Code, which punishes the financing of extremist activity, the bill establishes criminal liability up to imprisonment for five years for public calls for extremist activities committed on the Internet. The so-called “extremist” articles of the Criminal Code-280s (“public calls for extremist activity”) and the 282nd (“exciting hatred or enmity”) are supplemented accordingly: the words “information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet” are added to the words “the media”.

The pursuit of publications on the Internet, which, according to state bodies, falling under “extremist” articles, has occurred before. They already managed to write about the new bill that now repost or likes may be the reason for the criminal article. This is not entirely true: there are already many examples of initiating cases for reposts. For example, in April, a case was opened against the famous opposition from Barnaul Andrei Teslenko for the recovery of a Russophobic material. The case is also being investigated about the recovery of demotivators on a religious theme against the IT specialist from the Moscow region of Roman Matveev: the investigation sees in his actions the excitement of hatred against a group of persons on the basis of religion (Matveev is already included in the list of “persons in relation to which there is information about their participation in extremist activity”). In May, a case was initiated against a civil activist from Chelyabinsk Konstantin Zharinov, an author of studies on the history of terrorism, for the recovery on the VKontakte page of the “Right Sector”. Alexander Verkhovsky, director of the Owl Information and Analytical Center, recalls that criminal cases that most often initiate against Russian nationalists and racists are associated with publications on social networks video with beating, which, in fact, were also reposts: “They did not shoot the video and did not upload, but simply staged a link in their tape as their video.”

Apparently, for the investigation, the repost by default means that the user of the social network that does it is in solidarity with the publication. “There were many cases with reposts when it was impossible to understand from anything how a person interprets it,” explains Verkhovsky. - Theoretically, the investigation should have considered the entire context, that is, to view what he writes on social networks on this occasion, and then from the general context of his tape it may be clear, he will repost, implying “horrified, people!” Or “Hurray Ura, so it is necessary!” Another thing is that, of course, the investigation is not always, frankly, so seriously approached this, but actually it would have to be. ” The Criminal Code does not regulate such nuances. According to Verkhovsky, at best, law enforcement in relation to reposts could explain the Supreme Court, "but so far he has not reached such subtleties in his explanations."

Personal precedents for likes, according to the Owl Center, has not yet been. As I already had to write ATS-Info, a number of media stated that the photos pursue the Barnaul oppositionist Dmitry Bychkov for like, but in his case there was a repost with his own accompanying text. According to Verkhovsky, “from the point of view of the letter of the law, likes are not a statement”, therefore, it should not become a reason for initiating a criminal case. However, Verkhovsky admits that "practice (law enforcement-OTD-info) is possible."

In relation to at least some cases under Articles 280 and 282, experts have doubts about the legality of their excitement. What will change with the advent of special clarifications about the Internet in the relevant criminal articles? According to Verkhovsky, nothing should change in the application of Article 282 - it previously contained the wording of “public distribution, including the media”, now there will be “public distribution, including the media and the Internet”, but the previous wording of the Internet, in fact, covered. He is echoed by the legal analyst of the Agora Association, Damir Gaitundinov, who recalls that even in the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of June 28, 2011 “On Judicial Practice for Criminal Extremist Affairs” it was said that the spread of extremist materials “on the Internet” was equated with publication in the media. As for Article 280, the publication of the media in it is considered a qualifying sign - the corresponding crime should be punishable by the second part of the article, which involves a heavier punishment. Now, the second part will also fall on the Internet. “The punishment will be more severe, and the probability of detention under the arrest during the investigation is higher, and since a crime of higher severity, there will be more opportunity for wiretapping during the investigation, that is, all sorts of benefits for operational work will also be attached here,” Verkhovsky believes. According to the director of the Owls, “now they will enthusiastically present an article with great enthusiasm in cases where they really want to seriously punish someone. In most cases, in cases for all verbal deeds, as far as we know, there was no goal to seriously punish - there was a goal to simply pronounce the sentence, and they sentenced, as a rule, to the most insignificant punishments, if only the verdict was a conviction, because the investigation needed reporting. Although there were, of course, dramatic exceptions. And now for a few cases when they want to seriously punish someone, the 280th has become a stronger tool-maybe not even for use, but for intimidation: to tell a person who has replaced something that has shines for five years. This makes an impression. "

“I would consider this new bill, on the one hand, from the point of view of increasing responsibility for words, and on the other hand, as a demonstration of the direction of state policy in the field of Internet regulation,” says Damir Gainutdinov. “The authorities began to pay more attention to what is published on social networks, on popular networks, and the pressure that the media was more previously experienced in the form of the need to observe some formalities, register, in the form of a threat of registration, gradually applies to ordinary Internet sites.” According to the expert, independent sources of information on the Internet “give a clear signal that there are certain boundaries, crossing which, they risk encountering with all the power of the state repressive apparatus and already get a non -thousand -ruble fine, but a real term.”