New amendments to
Among others things, the bill has measures to fine publishers who print material deemed “extremist” up to $4000. Explains the
The publishing industry could also be affected by a new provision that was added to the bill before its second reading. The provision says that if media outlets refer to groups that have been banned for extremism, the outlets must mention the fact that those groups have been banned. The provision appears similar to an initiative last year to prevent media outlets from referring to the unregistered National Bolshevik Party.
Newspeak in its finest form. Such and such organization only exists as the State deems them.
The Duma’s actions come at the same time the Interior Ministry arrested Maxim “Tesak” Martsinkevich after he and 20 others interrupted a debate between journalists Maxim Kononenko and Yulia Latynina at the
The NTV report on Martsinkevich’s arrest can be viewed here.
Can’t say I have any sympathy for Martsinkevich. For once I stand with the Interior Ministry.
Update: I forgot to add that Tesak was arrested under article 282, section 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, “Incitement of Ethnic Strife with the Threat of the Use of Violence.” Conviction caries a prison sentence of 3-5 years.
Latynina told Kommersant, “It looked completely comical. Twenty brutes in camouflage came in at the height of the discussion, gave the Nazi salute and began to yell, We’ll cut up liberals.’ There were plenty of liberals around, but they didn’t cut anyone. Instead they left again like cowards.”
Gospodi, kakaya ona dura
What would she say when they cut “liberals” and she leaves in black plastic bag?
These guys has one right only – to stay behind bars. Whether it is prison or psihbolnitsa – doesn’t matter.
)
Because freedom of speach doesn’t mean freedom from responsibility. Za bazar nuzhno otvechat
Not so sure, Sean. I have mixed thoughts on the matter. On one hand I am very much against banning any political speech, no matter how vile, irresponsible and outright disgusting it might be.
One thing is to jail Nuts Balls for whatever nuisance crimes they might have committed, another is to ban the party.
Should people that disrupt Ann Coulter’s dribble at college campi be arrested like this Tesak guy? If of course he was arrested for just that disruption. What about those people that have disrupted Madeline Albright some years ago?
Due to your comment Cyrill, I added an update stating that Tesak was not arrested for disrupting the debate, but for threatening racial and political violence.
Heckling is one thing. And no I don’t think the people who disrupt Coulter, Bush, Putin or anyone liberal or conservative should be arrested though they are. But threatening violence is something else. Especially since Format 18 and their ilk is known for attacking and even killing others.
On one hand I am very much against banning any political speech, no matter how vile, irresponsible and outright disgusting it might be.
Do you mean that you have no objections if someone here will promise to cut your liberal throat?
PS. Nothing personal…just polishing you logic
))
“Do you mean that you have no objections if someone here will promise to cut your liberal throat?”
As long as my throat stays intact. Words and deeds are worlds apart. In the Russian version of the article Latynina disagrees with the arrest on similar grounds.
“?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????, ? ?? ????. ? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????????????? ?? ????, ? ??? ????? ? ?? ?????????????”.
If Latynina has guts to stare them down, without crying dear government protect me from someone’s offensive words, why wouldn’t others?
Polished enough?
Cyrill,
Your comment brought up some other thoughts on this issue.
One relationship I want to point out is perhaps something implicit in my post. There is a very big connection between Tesak’s arrest and the second reading of the extremism law. The problem with you or I applying a universal idea of freedom of speech is misplaced is because the Russia Constitution does not have such a concept.
Article 29 of the Russian Constitution states:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought and speech.
2. Propaganda or campaigning inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife is impermissible. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or language superiority is forbidden.
3. No one may be coerced into expressing one’s views and convictions or into renouncing them.
4. Everyone shall have the right to seek, get, transfer, produce and disseminate information by any lawful means. The list of information constituting the state secret shall be established by the federal law.
5. The freedom of the mass media shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be prohibited.
The first provision says that everyone has something called “freedom of thought and speech” but the second provision contradicts that.
So under the Russian constitution, Tesak’s words and deeds don’t make a difference. His words can be interpreted as enough.
Then enter the Extremism law. What this law does is basically carve out a another category which further restricts the first provision. Basically you have freedom to speak within the bounds all the law which happens to carve out different forms of speech.
Thus Russians have freedom to speak within the what the law defines as permissible by defining what is impermissible.
As the fourth provision states: Everyone shall have the right to seek, get, transfer, produce and disseminate information by any lawful means.(My emphasis.)
Isn’t this an example of a state based in legality? Certainly not a liberal state. If not then what type of state is Putin’s Russia?
As long as my throat stays intact. Words and deeds are worlds apart.
Really? It might be too late for your throat when words and deeds meet. “Liberlas” never learns from history. Otherwise they would know that every deed starts with word. And in fact word itself is a deed.
If someone disagree – I recommend to read Lenin and look at Christianity.
The first provision says that everyone has something called “freedom of thought and speech” but the second provision contradicts that.
I don’t think so. because there is no such thing as “pure” freedom (of anything). Even you, Sean, has to set up boundaries here, remember?
)
If you still has doubts – try to discuss in some public forum “just an idea” to blow up Airforce Number One and see what happens
)
PS. reading PATRIOT Act is also helpful in this respect.
The problem with you or I applying a universal idea of freedom of speech is misplaced is because the Russia Constitution does not have such a concept.
Sean, I am fully aware of this. and I am fully aware that Russia is not the only country that does this. Some of the arguably more democratic countries like Germany or Belgium would have no problems prosecuting someone for what I consider basic rights of free speech – denial of Holocaust, or in Belgium’s case, banning a political party.
Legal realities in one country or another does not excuse abridging freedom of political speech by these legal realities, otherwise it is a circular argument.
Isn’t this an example of a state based in legality? Certainly not a liberal state. If not then what type of state is Putin’s Russia?
Any state is based on legality. However, you add to the mix the abysmal corruption of law enforcement and politicization of the courts and jurisprudence in Russia and you have what might sound like a good general law being twisted right and left.
The reason I initially said I have mixed thoughts on this is lawlessness of Russian society. Not just corrupt law enforcement, but general lawless social standards. History and development mean that some societies are more advanced then others and what can be achieved in more advanced ones, still can not be achieved in less developed. I would like to see universal ideas of freedom applied to Russian society, but it is just plain not ready for it yet.
“Liberlas” never learns from history.
Right, right, that’s why the whole history represents a long and winding but steady process of liberalization of humanity from tribal dictate to sprouts of individualism to expansion of rights to lower classes to limited democracies and universal suffrage. All that has been brought up and fought for by liberals – and I do not need shameful quotes for that proud word I hope I can apply to myself.
It might be too late for your throat when words and deeds meet.
It might. That’s not enough for me to advocate banning political speech.
If you still has doubts – try to discuss in some public forum “just an idea” to blow up Airforce Number One and see what happens
)
How little do you know. We have books published about assassinating Bush specifically.
PS. reading PATRIOT Act is also helpful in this respect.
And where in the act does it limit political speech? Almost every provision of the original act had a clause excluding rights granted under the Constitution from being covered by the act.
ivanov said : “Liberals” never learns from history.
Cyrill said: …. steady process of liberalization of humanity … All that has been brought up and fought for by liberals – and I do not need shameful quotes for that proud word I hope I can apply to myself.
I doubt you have ever fought for anything, my dear liberal fighter
)
“It might be too late for your throat when words and deeds meet.”
It might. That’s not enough for me to advocate banning political speech.
In fact I don’t care what you are advocating for. I’m concern about my own and my kids throats. And because I used to and was trained for fight those who THINK (just think) that they have the right to cut my throat – I’ll do my best to keep them behind bars – as dangerous animals. And if you want to fight for their “rights” – you’ll have to face a lot of people like me (used to and trained for)…
Cyrill said: How little do you know.
You have no idea how little I know
)
And where in the act does it limit political speech?
Do you want me to read it to you ?????? ?????? ?? ?????
))
PS. Cyrill – I know that soviet ex-pats are best liberals. Better than Latynina and Albaz together
))
I doubt you have ever fought for anything, my dear liberal fighter
)
I could care less what you think of me or of what I have or have not done, especially if you can’t debate without getting personal non-sequiturs in.
And if you want to fight for their “rights” – you’ll have to face a lot of people like me (used to and trained for)…
Wonderful. I know. I saw those people beating up gay “rights” activists in Moscow as well.
Do you want me to read it to you ?????? ?????? ?? ?????
No, just simply quote it here. And keep the tales to your kids whom you use as an excuse to restrict freedom of speech of those you disagree with.
PS. Cyrill – I know that soviet ex-pats are best liberals. Better than Latynina and Albaz together
It is quite natural. They are still there, and have not been exposed to the ideas of freedom to the same extend. But they are still way ahead of most.
ivanov said : “I doubt you have ever fought for anything, my dear liberal fighter
)”
I could care less what you think of me or of what I have or have not done, especially if you can’t debate without getting personal non-sequiturs in.
First of all – nothing personal. You are proud to represent liberals here – so be ready to fight. Because I don’t agree with them.
Remember this: “liberals – and I do not need shameful quotes for that proud word I hope I can apply to myself.”?
Wonderful. I know. I saw those people beating up gay “rights” activists in Moscow as well.
Well, Cyrill, you confusing me**. You said that you would fight for the right of “tesaks” and other radicals. Now you are unhappy when these tesaks expressed their “rights”. They just don’t like gays. That’s all. At least they didn’t cut throats (yet)…. Instead they left again like cowards.
)
No, just simply quote it here.
If you didn’t see it in the first place – my quotes won’t help… sorry.
And keep the tales to your kids whom you use as an excuse to restrict freedom of speech of those you disagree with.
)
I personally can not restrict much. But I voted and will vote for the government that will keep “freedom fighters” behind bars (but they can shout their speeches there without any restrictions).
And I agree with you – everyone has the right to think what he wants. But if someone thinks he can cut my throat – he should be ready to get bullet from me . Without a warning (unless government keeps them locked). Because I don’t care what cockroach is “thinking” – when I see one in my kitchen – I smash bastard
BTW – do you think that pedophils also have the rights?
ivanov said : “PS. Cyrill – I know that soviet ex-pats are best liberals. Better than Latynina and Albaz together”
It is quite natural. They are still there, and have not been exposed to the ideas of freedom to the same extend.
You said it better then me – you were exposed!!!!
)))) I should remember this expression. Thanks.
FYI – I was “exposed” for the first time almost 20 years ago…. and still alive.
** I’m kidding (you are very predictable)
First of all – nothing personal. You are proud to represent liberals here – so be ready to fight. Because I don’t agree with them.
If you want to disagree, then disagree and be prepared to back it up. You made a ludicrous statement and were called upon it. Instead of arguing, you decided to “fight” it with with an irrelevant personal statement. Now you say it is not personal. You need to figure it out for yourself.
Well, Cyrill, you confusing me**. You said that you would fight for the right of “tesaks” and other radicals. Now you are unhappy when these tesaks expressed their “rights”. They just don’t like gays.
I understand your confusion. It will get better. Especially if you would not twist what I said. I am not advocating rights for Tesaks to go beat up gays. Only to say they would. It was, I believe, Dovlatov who long time ago made an observation that in Russia, there is a mystical link between words and deeds. For way too many, the former somehow automatically translates into the latter. No wonder that ???? (bulshitting) is so prevalent in contemporary Russia. And it seems too many take it all seriously.
If you didn’t see it in the first place – my quotes won’t help… sorry.
Humor me. If you can’t then it would probably be better to just admit you have no clue then to impersonate a weasel.
BTW – do you think that pedophils also have the rights?
You are confusing words with deeds again. Try to separate ??? ?? ??????.
You said it better then me – you were exposed!!!!
Oh lookie here, a gotcha! Yes, just like back in the USSR I was exposed to heavy dozes of Marxism, I was also exposed to body of liberal thinking.
I really find it hilarious that for some people both in the US and in Russia, the word liberal became a pejorative. Limbaughs and Hannities here and ivanovs there.
I’m neither in US nor in Russia, my liberal fighter
))