"I did nothing that goes beyond professional duty." The last word of the journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva

In Pskov, during the judicial debate on July 3, the prosecutor's office requested six years of a colony of general regime to journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva, accused in a criminal case of justification of terrorism. In addition, the state prosecution demanded to ban Prokopieva to engage in journalism for four years.

The reason for the criminal case was the author’s transfer of the journalist about the terrorist attack in the FSB building of the Arkhangelsk region. Representatives of Roskomnadzor and SK considered that Prokopyeva justifies terrorism in his text, as he criticizes power and compares the student who arranged an explosion with the people's volumes. The linguists who conducted the examination for the court did not find in the words of Prokopieu justification of terrorism, but these examinations were not attached to the case.

“Such things” publish the last word Svetlana Prokopyeva in court.

Svetlana Prokopyevakoto: Artem Avanesov

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 a celebrity, saying something stupid, rude and offensive, after the scandal is deprived of posts and advertising contracts as soon as possible. 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 of people when it 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.

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 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 compiled a card “On Violation” - not really understanding what exactly the violation was, because she had no special education. “I'm 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 the federal law, but also the basis of law - the presumption of innocence, since I, I remind, 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 there were also “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, I have been threatened for six years. 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.

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. A large terror in the USSR (more than 1.5 million victims in two years, 1937-1938) was carried out by the 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 a million victims among the Tutsi people 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, 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.

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 most cultural and civilized society - 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: “AU! 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.