The last word

On July 3, the prosecutor asked the court to appoint the Pskov journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva in the case of justification of terrorism 6 years of the colony and prohibit her to engage in journalism for 4 years. The process in the Prokopieva case is in Pskov in the Second Western District Military Court. The criminal case against it was opened in February 2019 in connection with her statements on the air of Echo of Moscow in Pskov about possible motives of 17-year-old Mikhail Zhlobitsky, who undermined himself in the building of the Archangel Department of the FSB. The main thoughts of her performances were also retold in the author’s column.

Last word Svetlana Prokopyeva in court:

Dear court! Thinking about my performance, I, out of habit, wondered: what is so important I want to tell the public? The last word is usually listened carefully, and it is unreasonable to spend it just on the search for sympathy.

At first I decided to tell how ridiculous to punish the whole power of criminal prosecution - how inefficient it is compared to living public condemnation. Judge for yourself: we have a lot of examples before our eyes, when an official, or a politician, or just some celebrity, saying something stupid, rude and offensive, after the scandal, in the shortest possible time, they lose their posts and advertising contracts. Social networks react quickly and sensitively. Society, following the collective instinct of self -preservation, itself outlines the language of enmity and hatred.

And compare with my criminal case. The text of "repression for the state" read dozens, well, hundreds, a man when he came out. He did not cause any unrest among the people. But six months later, the Sobrovtsy with machine guns burst into me, turned my house, they took my things - and now we are already the second year, with the involvement of experts, we find out whether there was a crime there. At the same time, a dangerous, according to Roskomnadzor, is now read by hundreds of thousands of people, translated into English and gained fame in different countries of the world.

And so, on one side of the scales - a constitution, and on the other - departmental instructions of Roskomnadzor

Another topic that I thought to touch is is an inverted pyramid of law. I am a journalist, and the basis of my profession is the constitutional right to freedom of speech. It is detailed in the Federal Law "On Media", which obliges the journalist to inform the society about significant events and problems and gives the right to publicly express his personal opinion. This is my job, they judge me for it.

And so, on one side of the scales there is a constitution, and on the other - departmental instructions of Roskomnadzor. The employee of this quasi -crowned body, seeing that the car was looking for the text with the word "terrorist attack", realized that it was a "serious article" in front of it, and made a card "about violation" - not really understanding what exactly the violation was, because she had no special education: "I am not an expert," she said in this process. Further, the card, according to the instructions, went on a long bureaucratic way from one instance to another, and as a result, it turned out to be violated not only the constitutional right to freedom of speech and opinions, not only the status of a journalist, fixed in federal law, but also the basis of law - the presumption of innocence, since I, I recall, was already punished by the release of things and money, even before the trial.

What is characteristic, none of the state bodies involved in the process did not notice or eliminate this imbalance. This already speaks of the unhealthy of our legal system.

But still there is an even more important topic. The specialist I attracted, Julia Aleksandrovna Safonova, speaking to the court, noted that states deliberately limit freedom of speech when it comes to exciting hostility and hatred. This is the reason why, in principle, criminal cases "for words" are possible. Later, Julia Alexandrovna explained what she had in mind. She recalled that such restrictions first began to appear in the legislation of democratic countries after the Second World War, when the world realized what kind of disaster the Nazi propaganda led to. Then, too, there were "just words."

This is a serious problem and a responsible fork: how, attracting the power of law and state coercion to the fight against the language of enmity, to preserve freedom of speech at the same time. How to avoid absurd criminal cases, when for my personal opinion, for example, it threatens me at the request of the prosecutor of 6 years in prison and 4 years of prohibition on the profession. Or when a person is under arrest for a comment on the social network and then in the colony. We perfectly understand how these examples are far from words and speeches that brought to Buchenwald and Auschwitz.

The most massive killings of civilians were organized by states

I thought a lot about it and, it seems, realized what was the salt. The Nazi propaganda, which ended with the genocide of entire peoples, the world war and the death of millions, was state propaganda. Adolf Hitler, organizer of the greatest crime in the history of humanity, was the leader of the state . Goebbels, whose name became a household name, was a civil servant - the Minister of Propaganda. And the ordinary executors of the Holocaust, those who shot and tortured in concentration camps, were also in the state’s service, they “acted according to the instructions” and “simply followed the order”.

If we turn to history, we will see that the most massive killings of civilians were organized by states. The cultural revolution in China (about 100 million victims) is the official policy of the ruling Communist Party of China in 1966-1976. Big terror in the USSR (more than 1.5 million victims in two years, 1937–38) - was carried out by state security organs. The Armenian genocide in 1915 (1.1 million victims) was supported by the Government of the Ottoman Empire. The massacre in Rwanda (from half a million to 1 million victims among the people of Tutsi in four months of 1994) was organized by the Hutu government.

It is state power, which fell into the hands of cynical and cruel people, that becomes the most terrible threat to the safety of citizens. Having allowed the usurpation of the authorities by a criminal politician, party or junta, citizens risk losing everything - from property and the right to opinion and ending with freedom and the right to life. But the criminal policy does not begin with criminal intent - no, there are always “high goals” and “noble motives”, such as the revival of the greatness of the nation, the protection of sovereignty or the fight against the internal enemy. That is why ordinary performers who simply follow the instructions and follow orders are so easily involved in criminal policy.

I am not afraid to tell the security forces that they are sometimes wrong. Because I know that it will become really scary if I don't say that

Repressions develop gradually. It is impossible to predict when the restriction of rights and the persecution of dissent will turn into concentration camps and executions. History tells us that such transformation is possible even in the cultural and civilized society itself - subject to the appropriate state policy and propaganda. That is why freedom of speech is needed - to score anxiety in time. Independent media, journalists, opposition politicians and activists are needed, in order to tell the ruling majority in a timely manner: "Ay! Look around! You get on a slippery path!" That is why the main and main object of criticism for the media has always been and will be the state - a system of power with a coercion apparatus capable of becoming an instrument of mass repressions.

I am not afraid to criticize the state. I am not afraid to criticize the law enforcement system and tell the security forces that they are sometimes wrong. Because I know that it will become really scary if I do not say that if no one says.

I do not claim a true opinion - there are no such ones. Any person can be mistaken and make mistakes, and not every time criticism is fair. But let it be better, including unreasonable criticism, which will not be at all. The more ideas we discuss the wider the range of opinions, the easier it is for society to make the right decision and choose the optimal path of development. It is easier to avoid a new humanitarian catastrophe, from which humanity, alas, is not safe.

I ask a respected court, making a decision in my criminal case, to take into account not only reports and protocols, but also the most general principles on which our society is built. This is freedom of speech, this is the status of a journalist, this is a mission of the press. I did my job. I did nothing that went beyond my professional duty. There is no corpus delicti in this.

The "Opinion" expressed in the heading of the point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial office