Planting in context

The Supreme Court included in the discussion about the decriminalization of "extremism"

The calls to mitigate the “extremist” article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which dozens of social networks are judged in Russia today, the last months sounded from everywhere: from members of the Human Rights Council (HRC), the Ombudsman Tatyana Moskalkova, the Ministry of Communications and many others. Even the presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov called for “maintaining common sense” when considering cases for extremism on the network. The first movements of the authorities regarding the “preservation of common sense” became known on September 7: the Supreme Court will collect at the end of this month a plenary session at which he will discuss the amendments to the decision on judicial practice in cases of extremism on social networks.

According to Vedomosti, when considering a criminal case for extremism, the judges will need to take into account the context of the publication, the maintenance of the author’s account, comments and the characteristics of his audience. Thus, a person will be found guilty according to the 282 article of the Criminal Code only if it is possible to prove that he deliberately filled the enmity.

The initiative may seem encouraging, but very similar amendments have already been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in 2016.

From that moment, more than 500 convictions for extremism have been issued, the majority for publications on the network (data from the Human Rights Service Center).

Experts are afraid that this time the authorities will also make a “handout” in the field of law enforcement, and the article will not decriminalize the 282 article or will not somehow adjust the legislation at all.

What does the Supreme Court offer? Firstly, the repost of the material, which was recognized as extremist, will not automatically mean that the author was going to incite hatred and enmity-for this we must provide additional evidence. Secondly, it is necessary to study the content of the entire user profile, the context of the publication (did he intend to insult some social group with his entry), the number of views, comments and the characterization of the entire audience of the user page.

In 2016, the Supreme Court had already amended the resolution of the Plenum of 2011. It also said that it is necessary to take into account the context, form, content of publication and comments on it. Now, except that a couple of details and a more resonant information background have been added. The chairman of the Human Rights Center, Alexander Verkhovsky, recalls that those amendments were also made against the backdrop of numerous news about accusations of extremism on the network, but in the end they were successfully applied in one or two cases, no more: “Now the difference is that the Supreme Court will try to explain in more detail to the judges so that they can use them in practice, and not in theory. Any clarifications of this kind are certainly beneficial. Another thing is that if the legislation itself is not changed, this benefit will be limited. All the same, everything is decided not by the court, but by the investigation. ”

Lawyer Ivan Pavlov says that during the amendments of 2016, nothing has changed and now will not change: “Because it is not the case in the Supreme Court. There is one way out - either to cancel the 282 article, or to significantly adjust. The authorities have a demand for such things to appear because they keep people in fear of censorship and self -censorship. In the meantime, there is demand, then proposals from law enforcement agencies will still appear. ”

Pavel Chikov, the head of the Agora, who is defending many persons involved in criminal cases for extremism on the Internet, is sure that the Supreme Court will become a “spoiler of the public request for liberalization” so as not to change the legislation. Verkhovsky, on the contrary, believes that even with such decorative amendments, the authorities will not be able to discuss changes in “extremist” articles, given today's wide public resonance. In addition, the human rights activist recalls that something needs to be decided according to the already issued sentences. With the help of the amendments of the Supreme Court, without changing the legislation, it will not be possible to challenge them. Verkhovsky is sure that the authorities will not conduct an amnesty under a politicized article, so the only way out is to soften the article, and then dispute the sentences.

Meanwhile, the case of four members of the informal movement “Male State”, playing for the Patriarchate and Nationalism, is being considered in Khabarovsk. This business is very similar to the "new greatness": there, too, the FSB informant entered the group of young people. They face up to 10 years in prison.

Last week, it became known that in Saratov the case was started on Natalia Kovalev for ditties about the judges posted on her page in VKontakte: for the “negative emotional assessments of the social (professional) group of the" judicial community ". The regional court of Barnaul sent Andrei Shasherin, the accused, in particular, for posts about Patriarch Kirill, for a month for a stationary examination in the Psychlechebnik. A week earlier in Omsk, they started the case on the feminist Olga Kalugin for "images and texts directed against men." A resident of St. Petersburg Eduard Nikitin asks the investigation to be directed for compulsory treatment for a caricature of cold “quilted jackets” published in VKontakte and a joke that positive changes are impossible after the election.