Main theses of the program:

• Over six months in Russia, 323 people were convicted under so-called “extremist” articles
• At the same time, the Criminal Code does not have a clear legal definition of the word “extremism”, and often this is simply understood as criticism of the authorities and the existing order
• According to human rights activists, judges in Russia have turned into officials who draw up the papers needed by the authorities
• Russian authorities often use criminal and administrative cases under “extremist” articles in order to exclude activists they particularly dislike from public life.

In just six months in Russia, 323 people were convicted under so-called extremist charges

Maryana Torocheshnikova: In just six months in Russia, 323 people were convicted under so-called extremist charges. The crime of most of them was publishing on the Internet a picture or recording that law enforcement agencies considered extremist. At the same time, there is still no clear legal definition of the word “extremism” in Russia, and often the police call any critical statements about the current authorities criminal, and the courts agree with them.

Correspondent: Krasnodar activist Daria Polyudova was released at the end of October from a penal colony in Novorossiysk, where she spent two years. In 2015, the Oktyabrsky Court of Krasnodar found her guilty of calls for extremist activities and separatism. The reason for the accusations was the repost of the picture and the post on the social network VKontakte. The Memorial Human Rights Center recognized Daria Polyudova as a political prisoner; she became one of the first in Russia convicted of publishing on the Internet.

Sergei Davidis, human rights activist: Daria Polyudova was charged with three counts. One is holding a picket calling for revolution. The second is a recording, also with a call for a socialist revolution. And the third - this was qualified as calls for extremist activity, under Article 280, and one episode under the then completely new article - calls for violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation (280.1), this is the publication of a picture with the caption: “We demand that the world community stop violations rights of Ukrainians in Kuban. Kuban wants to return to its historical homeland - Ukraine." None of these calls contained a call for violence, which we, raising the bar very high, consider as an exception when recognizing a person as a political prisoner.

More than 85% of criminal cases involving extremist statements involve materials posted on the Internet

Correspondent: The SOVA Information and Analytical Center notes that more than 85% of criminal cases involving extremist statements involve materials posted on the Internet. Most of them are publications on the Russian social network VKontakte. According to the Supreme Court of Russia, in 2016, more than 600 people were convicted criminally for public statements, and more than 3,000 were administratively convicted. The problem of persecution for expressing an opinion or reposting someone else's posts was raised at a special meeting of the Presidential Council for Human Rights.

Ilya Shablinsky, member of the Presidential Council for Human Rights: A very large number of people have been convicted under extremist charges precisely for expressing all sorts of thoughts and opinions online, moreover, simply for copying other people’s statements and posts. The line is very shaky. Today we are imprisoned for a statement that perhaps deserves the widest assessment, but a little in the other direction - and the state will want to imprison for criticism of itself.

Correspondent: Most often, reposting entries on the Internet is punishable under Article 282 of the Criminal Code “Inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity.” Article 280 “Public calls for extremist activities” is used less frequently. At the same time, there is no precise definition of the concept of “extremism” in the Criminal Code. Even the Ministry of Internal Affairs finds it difficult to give it.

Maxim Shevchenko, member of the Human Rights Council: There is no qualified concept of “extremism” in the Criminal Code, but you put people in prison for this.

Timur Valiulin, Head of the Main Directorate for Combating Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation: Responsibility for an act defined by articles of the Criminal Code is determined by the court. The disposition and sanctions of the articles are determined by the Criminal Code, which was not approved by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. If we violate the criminal and procedural legislation of the Russian Federation, I ask you to give examples, and I am ready to answer and comment.

Maxim Shevchenko: That is, you did not give the concept of “extremism”; you refer to the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization).

Timur Valiulin: In my law enforcement activities I refer to the Criminal Procedure Code and others.

There is no qualified concept of “extremism” in the Criminal Code, but you put people in prison for this

Maxim Shevchenko: Now, at least, you referred to the SCO.

Timur Valiulin: Yes! The definition of extremism is adopted by the SCO Convention.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Who do Russian police consider extremists, and how to avoid getting jail time for publishing on social networks? Let’s ask about this Alexandra Verkhovsky And Sergei Panchenko.

Speaker: - Member of the Presidential Council for Human Rights, Director of the Information and Analytical Center "SOVA", which specializes in such topics as radical nationalism, hate crimes, hate speech, measures to counter manifestations of xenophobia, freedom of conscience, as well as abuses in the field of countering extremism.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: So who are called extremists in Russian law enforcement agencies and courts, and what actions are called extremism? Is there still some sensible definition?

There is a definition, it is contained in the law on combating extremist activities. It cannot be called intelligent, it is just rather stupid. It is very broad, it is difficult to remember, and this definition is confused with the everyday understanding of extremism as something bad, anti-state, maybe just too extreme. And this is confused not only by the average person, but also by a policeman, an investigator, and so on. Therefore, very often, when asked whether this statement is extremist, the person in uniform answers: “Yes, of course, it is extremist,” and then begins to suffer, trying to explain why, trying to correlate with the definition. This happens all the time. But since the court, unfortunately, almost always chooses his side, he will suffer and suffer and come up with something that will do for the court.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: However, several years ago, the Supreme Court did convene some kind of plenum regarding the application of this Article 282 of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for extremism, and tried to bring all these concepts to a common denominator. Nothing came of it? Or has everyone forgotten again what definition the Supreme Court made?

Extremism is what FSB operatives called extremism

The mechanism for determining what extremism is in our law enforcement and judicial system is quite simple: extremism is what FSB operatives called extremism. Then, after a short investigation, the case ends up in our fast court, where judges sit who know perfectly well what is required of them, and who, in my personal opinion, today are officials performing a certain paperwork function due to the fact that they put in this position by the system and agreed to be part of this system. Here's a simple algorithm.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: This opinion of yours somehow smacks of extremism... (laugh)

That's right, because extremism in our society is something that is bad. And what is bad, in the understanding of the state, is that which goes beyond its official interpretation and runs counter to the official line proclaimed by officials.

There were even two Plenums of the Supreme Court - in 2011 and in 2016. But the Supreme Court cannot replace the law, and if the law is written stupidly, then it will remain so. But the Supreme Court is trying to make some clarification on the meaning of the words. For example, back in 2011 they wrote that criticism of political, national, religious views, customs or organizations should not in itself be qualified under Article 282 if there is no direct incitement of hatred towards the relevant groups of people.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: In other words, if we say that representatives of such and such a confession...

...idiots, for example, it will humiliate their dignity. And to say that they are absolutely wrong in everything, and it would be better if they kept quiet, is, in theory, criticism. But this, apparently, is too clever an explanation for our courts, and for the investigation. And you can make whatever claims you want to our courts, but the main thing is that they almost never acquit people if the investigation has made such an indictment.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: However, if the investigation has brought an indictment to the prosecutor for approval, then it is, as a rule, supported by some authoritative expert opinions, because a police officer cannot simply decide on his own that this is extremism.

Why? Actually, he could. I have an acquaintance who is a very good researcher; at one time he did a lot of examinations on these matters. He himself lives in St. Petersburg, and he told me a wonderful story about how a prosecutor from the province sent him 17 questions to an expert so that he could explain to him the meaning of the words “beat the Jews - save Russia.” The expert in this case simply sent the prosecutor and said: “You yourself, Mr. Prosecutor, can understand the meaning of these words, you don’t need an expert.” And in most cases it is really not needed.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Now it is important to note that this was a quote you used in the story, and not a call at all. (laughs) You see what it comes to!

What is the quality of such examinations?

The quality of investigations into cases of extremism is generally very low, because those who find these materials, as a rule, expect the case to go away on its own. Now, if a person stole a wallet, then it is necessary to prove that he stole this wallet. And when they try to convict a person for such things, first of all, the very fact of, say, posting some information is quite easy to prove. And then there is not an invoice, but a complete assessment - whether there is a crime here or not.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: I know that the SOVA Center uses the term “anti-legal anti-extremism.”

There is an administrative article prohibiting the display of any prohibited symbols

We say "unlawful". We consider two types of actions to be unlawful. The first ones are the simplest ones, which violate the current law. Let’s say that this and that are not prohibited by law, but the person was nevertheless prosecuted for this - not necessarily criminally, sometimes administratively or something else. In other cases, the law as such seems to us to be too restrictive of constitutional freedoms. For example, we have an administrative article about the ban on displaying any prohibited symbols (it mainly applies to the swastika, but there are other things). It is formulated as follows: “Demonstration or propaganda of such and such symbols.” It turns out that demonstration is punishable, even if the person demonstrates not for the purpose of propaganda, even if it is a historical photograph.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Well, that is, go to any museum...

Absolutely right! Usually, if you tell the police this, as was the case at a meeting of the Human Rights Council, they answer: “No, of course, that’s not how it’s done!” Of course, this is how it is done, there are such cases, and this, unfortunately, corresponds to the letter of the law. Let's leave aside the question of whether it makes sense to ban symbols at all, but the way they are banned in our country is clearly excessive prohibition.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Punishment for likes and reposts in the realities of modern Russia surprises few people. However, some cases go beyond understanding. Head of the Chuvash branch of the Open Russia movement Dmitry Semenov, for example, the court fined him for reposting an entry about how he had previously been convicted for reposting.

Dmitry Semenov: These are administrative cases related to the reposting of photographs of State Duma deputy Vitaly Milonov wearing a T-shirt with the slogan “Orthodoxy or...” (and further we are silent about the context, because I will again be brought to administrative responsibility for this). The first time I was sentenced to a fine of one thousand rubles in this case - this is Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code. And after that, a number of media outlets wrote about this story, and, in particular, they had a standard phrase there: “Let me remind you that Dmitry Semyonov was brought to justice for reposting a photograph of Milonov wearing such and such a T-shirt.”

Punishment for likes and reposts in modern Russia surprises few people, but some cases go beyond understanding

Accordingly, one of the media outlets and I also reposted it on my page, and since this standard phrase was there, they again considered that I was distributing extremist materials, and again opened a case against me under Article 20.29. Many media outlets laughed it off at the time and called it “a case for reposting news about how they were convicted for reposting.” And this time I was already brought to administrative responsibility with a fine of three thousand rubles.

As far as I know, the people who are the authors of this post have not had any problems with law enforcement agencies, and I don’t even want them to have them, you just need to understand that all these cases for reposts are always selective. This, naturally, is connected with social and political activities, and in the claim to the ECHR we specifically prove this.

Many media outlets then called this “the case for reposting news about how they were convicted for reposting”

Administrative fines for this slogan “Orthodoxy or...” impose additional sanctions on me: in particular, I cannot be an applicant for public events for a year and cannot go to any elections at all. This year we just had by-elections to various municipal assemblies, and I had a good chance of winning in Chuvashia, but I did not have the right to run. And just in order to prove this to the ECHR, I even tried to be nominated, and the Election Commission refused me on the basis that I was convicted under Article 20.29.

In this case, this story was quite predictable; it was connected with the personality of the person involved: this particular person had to be removed from election activity. This is an example of using the criminal law as a weapon to solve your problems.

Unfortunately, many people forget why the Criminal Code exists in society at all. It protects certain social relations, and, accordingly, any act turns out to be a crime when it causes significant harm to social relations.

Many people forget why the Criminal Code exists in society at all.

Here I would see the maximum grounds for some kind of private lawsuit by Milonov, if he wanted to do it. This is a private story, it does not harm the interests of society and cannot in any way be qualified under the Administrative or Criminal Code, especially since the ECHR does not make a difference between our administrative and criminal proceedings: it believes that if a person is convicted in the name of the Russian Federation, then he is already convicted

Here the mechanism is simply designed in such a way that it can generate an almost infinite number of cases, and then it is only a matter of local authorities or police officers to choose where these cases will arise.

This story is wonderful from start to finish! Not only was this person convicted for the second time for reposting, it was also reposting a publication in the media, which in itself could not constitute an offense. But the basic situation itself is absurd: someone reposts a picture of a person in such a T-shirt, and the person continues to walk around in this T-shirt, and, by the way, quite a lot of people continue to walk around in such T-shirts, and nothing is done to them.

But let’s take a step back: why, in fact, can’t they wear such T-shirts? Once upon a time there were two parallel cases in two Moscow district courts, and one decided that this ill-fated slogan was not extremist, and the other decided that it was extremist. But our legislation is structured in such a way that the decision that it is not extremist has no consequences at all, so it’s as if it never existed, but the second one did, and it ended up on the list of extremist materials. This is the slogan of Orthodox fundamentalists - perhaps their views are somehow unsympathetic to us, but it does not call for anything, and its meaning is that they want to stand up for their beliefs to the death. Well, fine, as long as they don’t throw themselves at people... Therefore, it is not clear what was actually prohibited here from the very beginning.

And then, of course, you can use it however you like. And the entire federal list is like this! The idea behind this list of extremist materials is that there are some phrases or books or songs that are so bad in themselves that they should be legally banned and removed from public circulation.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Recently, it has not been uncommon to initiate criminal and administrative cases for reposting and liking on social networks. What if you don’t repost pictures that are dubious from the point of view of law enforcement agencies, but save them on a flash drive or in a private album on social networks? This may also become a reason for a criminal case under the article “Extremism”. An activist is under investigation in Krasnoyarsk Oksana Pokhodun- she is accused of storing images of an extremist nature on her page. Pokhodun herself connects the initiation of a criminal case with her civic position and participation in opposition walks.

I open the door and he pushes me back in and says, “What, don’t you want to never see your daughter again?”

Oksana Pokhodun: It doesn’t matter to me whether to come for Navalny, for Maltsev, for shareholders without housing who have been waiting for 15 years for this housing. It doesn’t matter who the rally is for, as long as civil society comes out and demands its own. Since it cannot, by law, exercise its civil rights without going out into the streets, it means that it must go to rallies and thus achieve its goal. They went out, went for a walk - always in different ways: sometimes with adventures, sometimes without, with accompaniment or throwing eggs at them.

June 4 was a day off, there was the same regular walk, we walked to Navalny’s headquarters on Gorky Street, signed documents that we were with the organizers of the rally.

It was Sunday. On Monday, Navalny’s headquarters submitted permission for the rally to the city administration, and on Tuesday, the 6th, at half past seven in the morning, the FSB came to me with a search - for memes from the closed VKontakte album. During the search on the 6th, I was shown screenshots with images that were not used now. There were images of Putin with swastikas, and I don’t even remember that I was guarding something like that somewhere.

I was at home, getting ready for work, there was a knock on my door so quietly, and I didn’t even ask who, although I was surprised that it was so early. Well, I calmly open the door, and they push me back, he pushes me like that and says: “What, don’t you want to never see your daughter again?”

Article 282, part 1: uploaded these images for an unlimited number of people, for copying and familiarization by anyone, although the album is closed and no one has access to it. Now they cannot prove that this album was open, just as I cannot prove that it was closed, privacy is set.

Here is my page, 199 public photos that other people can see. But this is a closed album, and there are 4947 images, it’s just a dump, what not! Those who use VKontakte have seen that all these images existed and exist in the public field. And no one sees any violations in this, but I am charged with this!

All these images exist in the public sphere, and no one sees any violations in this, but I am being charged with this!

There are three volumes - some of them I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But I already have a stack of subpoenas, how many times have I visited the Investigative Committee - probably about 20.

And I was fired one day. In one day, a reprimand, two reports, and the report did not even say what time period was given to eliminate the shortcomings of the work. On August 22, I filed a lawsuit, and on September 19, the court declared the dismissal illegal and reinstated me at work.

I don’t know at what stage the investigation is now: it should have ended, but then my investigator in St. Petersburg also sent a request for some additional examination.

I don't consider myself guilty. These images are not public, no one sees them, and if the FSB sees them, then that’s their problem! They will also remain guilty of seeing it, because they cannot see it. Let the social network VKontakte think carefully about why they see this, and other people will be careful: their pages can be used by third parties.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: As far as I understand, there are now more than four thousand items on the list of prohibited materials.

: More than 4200.

There are now 4,200 items on the list of prohibited materials

Maryana Torocheshnikova: The average person who is not a researcher in this field has no idea what is on this list. Do I understand correctly that in this way Russia, which does not have case law, has formed the part in which precedent is used: if you find something prohibited in these four thousand plus items, then, in principle, you can prosecute it jail or fine the number of people who have ever used it?

Well, the list of so-called extremist materials is aimed at prohibiting the circulation of these specific materials, and not some other similar ones. I think it would never occur to anyone to do an examination of such content that some material is similar to the prohibited one, and therefore...

It's still coming!

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Is that what they do?

Certainly! There is a whole large practice, for example, of blocking access to various sites because they contain materials similar to prohibited ones. These sites are not recognized as extremist, but their content is considered illegal. This is a new trend of the last year, such a new procedural find - there are a lot of such court decisions.

Another trend has emerged - the ban and recognition of anonymizers as extremist, their blocking

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Another trend has emerged - banning and recognizing anonymizers as extremist, blocking them on the grounds that... I even wrote out quotes from what the prosecutor’s office writes: “Users of services can view information about the inferiority of citizens based on their nationality, language and religion , without leaving data about your real location, IP address and without registering on the site, which contributes to inciting interethnic and interreligious hatred." Or here is also a quote from the appeals of prosecutors in different regions to the courts demanding blocking: “With the help of this service, users can gain full access to all prohibited sites and materials, including extremist and terrorist ones, through anonymous access and substitution of user addresses.”

This is the same as banning kitchen knives, axes and clotheslines because these items can cause death to a person. And in general, according to the prosecutor’s office, citizens should not be allowed out into the street, because they can trip, fall and break, so they need to be kept in well-isolated premises with a regime.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Yes, but the courts make decisions, satisfy these demands of prosecutors and block anonymizers!

Soon this problem for the courts will disappear, because amendments are coming into force according to which services such as anonymizers and VPN providers, if they refuse the prosecutor’s office’s demand to block access to some resources, then access to them will be blocked at the request of the prosecutor’s office without a trial. We talked about this with the same police and prosecutorial officials who defend the expediency of this activity, and their argument goes as follows: of course, we understand that an advanced young man will bypass all these blockings of ours and still read what he wanted to read there , but the average citizen will break down and will not bypass, and thus we carry out prevention, we do not allow malicious content, for example, videos of ISIS banned in Russia, to spread among anyone.

This is the logic, and it really is that it is better not to let citizens go outside. This doesn’t work well, and we constantly argue about this with them wherever possible, saying that this is the wrong way, and nothing will work out this way, and it’s not for nothing that they don’t do this in other places.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: But this is actually a violation of freedom of access to information, and this is a reason to appeal, including to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Why write laws that can obviously be found to be unconstitutional?

I'm afraid our Constitutional Court is not the place where it will be possible to challenge this.

The fact is that among our legislators and law enforcers, the idea written in the Constitution of the Russian Federation that a person and his freedoms are the highest value has long been replaced by the idea that a person is the property of the state, and an official will determine how he will exercise your rights. The Constitution says that a person can be prohibited from doing something only in one case - if it causes harm to other people, does not allow them to live, or jeopardizes the interests of others.

It's written in the Constitution! Everything else is absolutely unconstitutional bureaucratic interpretations. And the perception of this with a bang by a significant part of society is connected with our Soviet traditions of subordinating a person to the power of the state, with the fact that a person does not recognize himself as an individual who has rights from birth.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: In October 2017, the European Court of Human Rights made its first decision related to the application of Article 282 of the Criminal Code in Russia. Strasbourg judges upheld the complaint of Nizhny Novgorod journalist and human rights activist Stanislav Dmitrievsky, convicted under Article 282 for publishing appeals from Chechen separatist leaders Akhmed Zakayev and Aslan Maskhadov. I quote: “Unless the expressed opinion advocates violence, blood feud, does not justify the commission of terrorist crimes in the name of stated goals and cannot be interpreted as incitement to violence through the expression of hatred towards specific individuals, states cannot use the defense of territorial integrity, state security, maintaining public order and preventing crime as a reason to limit society's right to receive information about this opinion."

This clarification concerns only one point: namely, the protection of territorial integrity or state security... There is a separate and most vague problem - the extent to which the state can limit the incitement of hatred. This is a very sensitive issue, because in all the conventions, everywhere it is written that incitement to hatred is prohibited. There are many comments on the topic of what “excitement” is, and how exactly one can excite something, and there are explanations, say, that it should be public, loud enough, it should be addressed to a fairly wide audience, but it is not clear what means the word "hate" here.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Hate speech?

This is all the definition of some words through others. It is clear that these are some negative statements about large groups of people. How negative does speech have to be for the government to ban it?

Maryana Torocheshnikova: That is, the decision of the European Court is not a panacea?

No, this is definitely not a panacea, although it can be relied upon in a number of cases that are similar to the Dmitrievsky case.

Maxim Kormelitsky, Berdsk(1 year and 3 months in prison for a VKontakte picture): If our state also puts in prison all the subscribers of such publics, of which there are hundreds of thousands, it will not have enough prisons, but even colony settlements.

Personal growth? Ha! I sat down to repost

Kirill Petrov, Novokuznetsk (fine 1000 rubles for a VKontakte picture): I am wanted by the police for propaganda or public display of Nazi paraphernalia. Can anyone explain why?

Alexander Soymin, Vologda(one and a half years in prison for two pictures on VKontakte): Now the prosecutor told us that everything is written here correctly, but I want to say that this is a complete falsification.

Evgeny Kort (year in prison for the photo on VKontakte): They confiscated the computer system unit, two laptops: one of mine and one of my brother. He shows me some printouts: “Why, tell me, Evgeny, do you keep such material on your wall?”

Anton Benediktov, Radio Liberty correspondent: Here is a Twitter user from the outskirts of Sochi writes: “A case was opened against my friend for reposting a picture on VKontakte. But we all believe that this is connected with the Olympics: he very actively spoke out against its corruption.” Social networks are discussing the severity of such sentences: “Well, what about a trial for reposting?” - “They gave me three rubles.” - "Lucky!" - “Yes, I’m so lucky!”

We would conquer the whole space, but we are imprisoned for reposting

And they check for what kind of jokes on the Internet they are not yet prosecuted for: “Is this already an article or is it still tolerable? And for reposting Parmesan or liking jamon, how many years do you get imprisoned for?” Many people wonder: how many resources do intelligence agencies spend on such investigations? “The CIA is preventing a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, and our FSB is monitoring what repost you make.” Young users of social networks are afraid that next time they will come for them: “Personal growth? Ha! I sat down to repost.” Or: “We would conquer the whole space, but we are imprisoned for reposting.”

Maryana Torocheshnikova: What does a person need to do to avoid being an “extremist” in Russia? How to behave? What literature should you not read?

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Can you memorize this list of four thousand items?

It won't help. There in the list there are such items: for example, file3.jpeg. How can you understand what was in this file? Obviously some kind of picture.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: That is, theoretically, if this 3.jpeg file is included in the list of prohibited extremist materials, then anyone who has it on their computer...

Fortunately, no! The list literally consists of what the district courts sent, and as the district judge wrote, so it remained on the federal list.

It is clear that if a citizen wants to say something harsh about the government or about some group of citizens, he must understand that the sharper he expresses his judgment, the more rude he is, the more chances he has that he will be elected as a target of persecution from a sea of ​​people who said similar things.

The second thing to keep in mind: if you are an activist, then you take risks - including this one.

And lastly: most cases take place on the social network VKontakte: it is easy to identify the speaker there - you can simply send a request to the VKontakte administration, and it will one hundred percent send the police an IP, telephone number and everything that is needed. And if this happens on Twitter, then Twitter may or may not send it. Therefore, just in case, investigators prefer to deal with VKontakte: there is enough material there. And if you want to say something wrong, just don’t write it on VKontakte, or better yet, don’t write anything there at all.

A person can be prohibited from doing something only in one case - if it causes harm to other people.

In principle, it is very easy to distinguish an extremist from a non-extremist. To do this you need to have a conscience. Many people say that “conscience” is not a legal concept. No, this is a legal concept. There are norms in the laws of the Russian Federation that state that a judge is guided by his conscience when making a decision. So, when you write something on the Internet, you must also pass it through your conscience and be very careful about every word you say. And cross the road only when the light is green if you are a political activist, because your posts will be dismantled to the last comma.

Maryana Torocheshnikova: Not long ago, the Jehovah's Witnesses organization was recognized as extremist. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains Article 282.2, which provides for criminal liability for participation in the activities of organizations recognized by court decisions as extremist: according to Russian legislation, this is a crime, and it is prosecuted by law. Does this mean that we should expect a wave of cases in Russia under this Article 282.2 against tens of thousands of people who adhere to this religion?

I do not expect any wave of persecution of ordinary members of this organization. I think a professional approach will be applied to activists, because this organization has traditionally been persecuted for a long time, back in Soviet times.

This question is in some way not about law. From practice, we know that such cases against Jehovah’s Witnesses already exist. The proof that a person is participating is that he or she comes to the prayer meeting. But this application is always selective. Such cases can be multiplied indefinitely, because Jehovah's Witnesses are the kind of people who do not give up. And this is a question, in essence, for the political authorities - they will decide this, there is no legal solution here. The political authorities, who agreed that the Prosecutor General's Office would take this lawsuit to the Supreme Court, have put themselves in such a situation that they will now have to decide how many cases per year they want to bring against Jehovah's Witnesses. This is simply an area of ​​arbitrariness in its purest form.

There is no question of law here, there is no question of the need for a clear legal assessment of the identification of some socially dangerous facts and punishment, such as for theft, banditry, robbery and murder. This is a discretionary question, but the state, or rather the security forces, considers it - that’s all.

Ruslan Sokolovsky, blogger: Lately, a lot of people have been writing to me that they have actually started criminal cases regarding shares and reposts. They write: “Hello! I’m from such and such a town. An operative contacted me - they contacted me, called me to court. And now they are trying to convict me under Article 282 for reposting a picture on the Internet” or “because because I posted such and such a book."

People in uniform are trying to somehow earn themselves stars and bonuses in a new way.

In general, this whole story, it seems to me, stems from the fact that people in uniform are trying to somehow earn stars and bonuses for themselves in a new way. After all, it’s enough just to take this repost or share, give it to the experts, and they will write any kind of examination. You can simply ask to find extremism there, and extremism can be found in anything, even in the phrase: “Luntik is not good.” In theory, we can conclude from this that Luntik is perhaps an entire social group, and in fact, Luntik has a lot of fans who are also a social group, and since you insulted Luntik, then you, it turns out, insulted at the same time, the feelings of an entire social group of Luntik lovers. And this is how justice works in our country according to this principle.

Extremism can be labeled as anything. I once spoke negatively about sects, which sometimes rob people fraudulently, and I was called an extremist, I was officially convicted, among other things, of extremism, as a person who condemned sects. This is strange to me, I don’t understand it and I think it needs to be fixed.

Arrest for reposting a report about a World War II museum

Pavel Karachaushev, a student from Stavropol, was detained for three days. The reason was the repost of a report about the World War II Museum in Poland on his VKontakte page. The student was accused of posting a swastika, writes Radio Liberty.

Employees of the Center for Countering Extremism questioned the young man about whether he goes to rallies and whether he supports oppositionist Alexei Navalny. According to the student, after his arrest, he deleted all information from his social media accounts and does not publish anything else.

Accusation of extremism for accidentally liking

A doctor from the Khabarovsk Territory liked a picture on Odnoklassniki that condemned the participation of Russians in the armed conflict in Donbass. The Investigative Committee decided that the accused himself posted it and opened a case of extremism. Now he faces five years in prison.

On trial for a joke about the patriarch

They want to put a resident of Barnaul on trial for extremism because of a meme depicting Patriarch Kirill, posted on a page on VKontakte.

The man published on social networks a photo with a restored church and a collapsed house nearby, a caricature in which a parishioner says that he sinned by eating sanctioned foods, and receives penance from the clergyman to “read “Our Crimea ten times””, a photo from the police computer center that sanctifies Patriarch Kirill, and a picture in which Jesus Christ stands behind the patriarch and asks “Can you tell me the time?” (the collage was associated with the scandal that occurred in 2012, when a Breguet watch worth 30 thousand dollars was smeared on the hand of Patriarch Kirill using Photoshop). The latter was considered extremist.

According to experts, in this context, the image of Christ is used to demonstrate the negative qualities of church ministers in order to discredit the Russian Orthodox Church.

Satire is prohibited

A criminal case was opened against the artist, who publishes works under the pseudonym Tarakanbix, for extremism. The girl reposted a picture depicting the rally. The image itself is not related to the girl’s work.

Fine for two archival photos from Germany during World War II

Another story related to materials about the Second World War. This time, Oyumu Dongak, a Tuvan journalist, was found guilty under Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses “Nazi Propaganda” for two archival photographs from Germany during the Second World War and was given a fine of 1,000 rubles. As TJournal writes, the first one depicts a crowd of Germans waving flags with swastikas - this is a picture for an interview between journalist Arthur Solomonov and German Nora Nass about the formation of the Nazi regime in Germany. The second shows Adolf Hitler sitting at a table with a newspaper - this is an illustration for the post about the German leader becoming Man of the Year.

According to the journalist herself, the police took her to the station because of a complaint from a member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Accusation for the meme

A manager from Tver is accused of extremism for reposting memes on VKontakte. No official charges have been brought, as the Investigative Committee is conducting an examination. But a criminal case was opened under Article 282 Part 1. During the arrest, the man’s laptop, tablet and recently purchased phone were taken away, although the smartphone was purchased later than the accused period.

Repost brought me to prison

Maxim Kormelitsky from the city of Berdsk was sentenced to one year and three months in a penal colony. The court charged him under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Insulting the feelings of believers using the Internet.”

The young man reposted a picture from the Dvach group on Vkontakte. As Meduza writes, it depicted Epiphany bathing; in the text that accompanied it, the bathers were rudely insulted several times for exposing their bodies to extreme stress for the sake of religion. The prosecutor said that the defendant “is an atheist and has hatred towards people who profess Christianity.”

In addition to the convicted person, about 70 more people reposted it. Nothing is known about the charges against them. Let us add that the case of insulting the feelings of believers is not the first in Kormelitsky’s life. He was previously convicted of planting a dummy bomb in the city's youth department, as well as for stealing a computer from a pizzeria.

Motuzna process

This is the most high-profile case to date. 23-year-old resident of Barnaul Maria Motuznaya is accused of insulting the feelings of believers and extremism.

The reason for initiating a criminal case was pictures with memes posted on the VKontakte social network. It was previously noted that the girl faces up to six years in prison. It was also reported that the bank accounts of a Barnaul resident were blocked, and her name was added to the list of extremists on the Rosfinmonitoring website even before the trial.

It should be noted that in 2017, 461 people were prosecuted for reposting and liking on social networks. Vladimir Putin himself agreed that the situation with punishment for such cases should not be brought to “insanity and absurdity,” but so far it looks like that.

Photo: ClientBar, stolica-s.su, meduza.io

I like

Russia is cracking down on ordinary social media users if they post things online that could be construed as a “danger to the state.” Andrei Bubeev was sentenced to more than two years in prison for a picture that he shared with 12 of his friends on the social network VKontakte.

The hand squeezes the tube of toothpaste, the toothpaste flows out. Next to it are words about “squeezing out” the country.

This is a description of the picture that brought Andrei Bubeev to prison. For sharing it with 12 friends on social networks, he was sentenced to more than two years in prison, the AP news agency wrote in an article published on Monday.

Context

Russia uses extremism laws against dissidents

Reuters 12/17/2010

Yuri Schmidt - about pardon, Medvedev, extremism, parties and civil society

Russian RFI service 04/05/2012

Exhibition at the Hermitage is being checked for extremism

The Independent 12/08/2012 His wife Anastasia (23 years old) shows the picture to an AP journalist. According to the news agency, authorities in Russia are cracking down on ordinary social media users if they post things online that could be interpreted as a “danger to the state.”

“He was interested in politics, read the news, shared information, but he did it for himself. It’s like collecting newspaper clippings,” says Andrei’s wife Anastasia.

She now lives alone with their four-year-old son and had to drop out of medical school because she couldn't afford to hire someone to look after her son while she studied.

According to his wife, Bubeev spent a lot of time on the Internet. He shared links on the Russian social network VKontakte and participated in political debates on local newspaper websites. VKontakte is the most popular social network in Russia, with more than 270 million accounts.
“His page was not popular, he only had 12 friends. He simply could not set himself the goal of forcing anyone to do anything.”

Using the law on extremism

At least 54 people in Russia have been jailed for “inciting hatred,” most of them for either posting or sharing things online. The figure is almost five times higher than it was five years ago, according to the Moscow-based human rights group SOVA. The group studies human rights, nationalism and xenophobia in Russia. The number of convictions for hate speech rose from 92 in 2010 to 233 last year.

A 2002 Russian law defines extremism as activities that “undermine state security and constitutional order” or “glorify racism or terrorism, or encourage others to do so.”

The law's vague definition makes it possible to target a variety of people, from those who create a terrorist cell or parade around with Nazi symbols to those who are most likely to write online what could be construed as a danger to the state. In the end, the court itself makes a decision on whether a social media post poses a danger to the state.

Attack on those who criticized interference in Ukrainian affairs

In February 2014, President Vladimir Putin also signed an amendment to the law that provides more severe penalties for non-violent extremist crimes, such as incitement to hatred. Later that year, after Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, Putin signed a law making “steps aimed at destroying the territorial integrity of Russia” a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

Many of those who have been jailed for inciting hatred on social media in Russia in the past couple of years have been critical of Russian intervention in Ukraine.

This happened with the pictures and articles that Andrey Bubeev reposted.

Andrei believes that the fact that he was put in prison was done on purpose: so that other citizens would be afraid to express their opinions, says his lawyer Svetlana Sidorkina in an interview with AP.

Captured by Russian special police

Exactly a year ago, a 40-year-old electrician went to work at a construction site outside the city. Since investigators were unable to reach him, they began to look for him as a suspect of extremism. When Bubeev went to visit his wife and son at a dacha in the village that same day, police special forces burst into the house and seized him.

A few months after his arrest, he pleaded guilty to "inciting hatred towards Russians" and was sentenced to a year in prison. He reposted photos, videos and articles from Ukrainian nationalist groups, including groups fighting Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Less than two weeks after Bubeev was sentenced, he was sentenced again. This time he was accused of “inciting terrorism and actions that undermine the territorial integrity of Russia.” He shared a picture of a tube of toothpaste, as well as an article titled “The Crimean Peninsula is Ukraine,” which called for military aggression against Russia.

On May 6, Bubeev was sentenced to prison for two years and three months.

Sentenced to years in prison

Earlier this month, another man was sentenced to two years in prison in Astrakhan for posting a call for Ukrainians to "fight against Putin's occupation forces."

In December, a man in Siberia was sentenced to five years in prison for “inciting hatred” against residents of eastern Ukraine in a video he posted online.

In October, a court in southern Russia sentenced a political activist to two years in prison for an illegal protest and social media posts in which he criticized Putin and called on southern Russia to join Ukraine.

The online community belongs to a pro-Putin billionaire

According to the SOVA group, half of the posts that led to convictions for inciting hatred were posted on the VKontakte network. The company that operates this social network is owned by pro-Kremlin billionaire Alisher Usmanov. SOVA director Alexander Verkhovsky believes that this makes it easier for Russian authorities to gain access to VKontakte accounts than in foreign online communities.

Bubeev’s lawyer claims that thanks to the privacy settings on the social network, his page was accessible to him and 12 of his friends. The lawyer told the AP that he could not explain how the security service discovered his post - or how it even gained access to accounts on this network.

VKontakte did not want to comment on the case when the news agency contacted it.

Decline in racially motivated violent crime

In the early 2000s, Russia was hit by a wave of violence against Asian foreign workers, but the number of attacks fell sharply after several dozen neo-Nazis received long prison sentences for extremism.

Human rights activists and lawyers who have worked on extremism cases say the decline in violent hate crimes has prompted police and investigators to shift to prosecuting nonviolent insults to show that the fight against extremism is continuing, AP said.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.