In order to demonstrate the whole bureaucratic significance, sometimes such mechanisms are used which, it would seem, should stand guard over the Russian statehood, but in fact stand guard over the theater of the absurd.
So what are we talking about? The fact is that for some time now, namely from June 25 of 2002, the Russian Federation has had Federal Law numbered 114, which has the following name "On Countering Extremist Activities." The full text of this law is published in "Russian newspaper" and gives the concept of both extremist activity and the basic principles of countering this kind of activity. Excellent, I must say, the law is correct, effective. But only as long as they do not try to use it in an absurd way.
In particular, in some ways this law fits into the article of the 4 th media law, and this “docking” suggests that in no case should the names of extremist associations and organizations be mentioned without indicating that they were either the territories of Russia are liquidated, or their activity in the Russian Federation is prohibited.
If, for example, on the pages of one or another media (even the Military Review), someone meets information about pravosekakh without mentioning that the PS organization is prohibited in Russia, then Roskomnadzor will issue such a media warning with all the consequences . They say that the media smacks of extremist tendencies ... The most interesting thing is that the warning will be issued (if there are “well-wishers” who indicated “violation of the law”) even if one of the authors allows himself to write something like “yes these pravoseki are the last creatures, fascists and nonhumans ”, but the main thing for the controlling authorities is that“ without mentioning ”their (pravosek) prohibition. There is an opinion that officials of controlling organizations do not read into the texts, but they cheerfully respond to the signals of those who are simply interested in the number of patriotic media in the country. There is no addition - “banned in the Russian Federation”, which means that “extremists are cursed” in the media ...
But it would be okay if it only concerned pravoseks, banned in Russia. The situation for the domestic media is complicated by the fact that there are hundreds of such prohibited structures, and thousands of prohibited materials from them. And everyone, it turns out, needs to be kept in mind so as not to be known as a “champion of extremism.”
In particular, the website of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, where all these insidious structures are put together and presented on one page. If the reader followed this link, he saw that there were only extremist materials, at the mention of which it was necessary to write in bold that they were prohibited, 3706! Using the now popular Internet meme, one can say: "Three thousand seven hundred and six, Karl!" And what a nightmare it will be if a journalist of a particular publication publishes news about the next barbaric act of ghouls, jihadists in Syria or Iraq, France or Afghanistan, Libya or Yemen, will forget to add that the activities of these same ghouls, jihadists are prohibited in Russia, as prohibited by such-and-such court’s decision. .
On the basis of the fact that it is possible to shuffle the “punishment” from Roskomnadzor, even if we are talking about writing material of an obvious anti-extremist nature, it is difficult to guess what to do if you prepare material, for example, about Nazi atrocities during the Great Patriotic War. Will the author of an article or a book be accused of “aiding extremism” if he uses the name Hitler in an historical context in an article or book? Is it necessary immediately after this to add that "Adolf Hitler was liquidated and banned on the territory of the Russian Federation" ... Similar questions about the Nazi accomplices, including Bandera, Shukhevych, Vlasov. Even more interesting is with Mannerheim, who is an outspoken accomplice of the Nazis, but who in St. Petersburg opened a memorial plaque ...
Well, it’s just interesting, is it really not an exaggeration, to put it mildly, foolishness to those who claim a reverent attitude to the letter of the law?
At one time, the editors of Military Review were ordered to remove historical articles about the atrocities of the UPA in Volyn photographs of children torn by Bandera thugs. It seems like everything is correct - photos can harm the moral and psychological state of the most impressionable citizens. This is clear. But on the other hand, how and where in this case will citizens learn the truth about the horrors associated with the same Bandera gangs? How then to be with the concept of conveying the historical truth to the reader, after all, not everyone can afford to visit the archives every day or talk with living witnesses to the historical drama.
If a person is very impressionable, so why, forgive himself, does he force his peace of mind by familiarizing himself with historical materials about the atrocities of Nazism? After all, no one forces him to read this particular material and view these particular pictures. In the end, there are many other media outlets - for example, Radio Liberty or Voice of America, which, strangely, have no complaints from the supervisory authorities.
In general, we deleted the photo ... The impressionable remained in moral equilibrium. True, the questions immediately arose from those readers who were really going to get acquainted with the historical truth about the mentioned genocide of the Poles in Volyn. Such readers had a reasonable question: “What a strange censorship?” And our mass media did not find an explanation for such readers, because the law ... Here is the daily “Crimea. The realities "throw mud at the will of the people, call the Crimean people separatists and assign the results of the referendum the label" annexation and occupation "- that, it turns out, is not extremism. And photographs of historical truth are pure extremism.
Although whether to blame such a strange approach directly "Roskomnadzor"? It is unlikely ... After all, he only performs legislative initiatives coming from other offices. They said - to control the media, not finished writing about the "ban on pravosekov", he controls the train ...
Considering that the legislators are “up to the heap” going to prohibit the use of the word “suicide” in the media, because the very use of this word can supposedly “push” someone to the fact that smoking scenes must be accompanied by warning texts, that age figures must be sculpted everywhere, with of which the viewer (reader, listener) can familiarize himself with the material, media publications will soon themselves look like the embodiment of the theater of the absurdity mentioned above. In this regard, it’s scary to suppose how many times the term “forbidden in Russia” will have to be used by the authors of history textbooks if the controlling authorities find this “uncontrolled gold mine” with its paragraphs on the acts of the Nazis and terrorism in the North Caucasus and many more about what...
In this regard, we propose that both legislators and regulatory bodies should not go too far, but proceed from the evaluation of materials not by means of a robotized approach or by slander sent by anyone, but by analyzing their (materials) semantic load. Even in the Soviet years, none of the officials had enough “intelligence” to force the phrase “defeated and banned in the territory of the Soviet Union” at the mention of the word “fascism”. The absence of such an initiative, by the way, did not prevent the overwhelming majority of citizens from evaluating the atrocities of the fascists and their accomplices. And those who are initially preparing to make a different assessment cannot be convinced by any “postscript”. The main conviction and the main tool here is the truth, including the historical one. And do not make it a victim of conjuncture.