"Russian Censorship: How 'Fake News' Law Led to Collapse of Independent Journalism"

An interesting (and quite detailed) article Tuesday in PressGazette (Alfie Davis), an English publication focused on the media; here's a short excerpt:

A change to the Russian Criminal Code, which criminalises the dissemination of "false information" about the Russian military, was passed in March—eight days after the invasion of Ukraine.

Under the law, journalists must comply with official military descriptions of the conflict describing it not as a "war" but a "special military operation."

Those deemed to have abused their "official position"—including journalists—by passing "deliberately false information" off as "reliable reports" face a ₽3m (£20,600) to ₽5m (£34,000) fine, ten years in prison or compulsory labour. Should these supposed falsehoods be about the Russian military, jail time rises to a maximum of 15 years.

Since the law was passed, more than 30 independent Russian media outlets have been forced to shut down including Meduza, The Moscow Times, TV Rain, Znack and The Bell.

Leading independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, edited by 2021 Nobel Peace Prize winner Dmitry Muratov, suspended operations following repeated warnings from Roskomnadzor, the Russian media regulator, while Echo of Moscow, one of Russia's few independent radio stations, was taken off air during prime time.

Comments

[Martinned]

Or, and hear me out here, it could be that running a country as a dictatorship is what led to the collapse of independent journalism.

[DaivdBehar]

Independent journalism? Where? All media are hate speech propaganda outlets for their billionaire owners. Beyond pure hate speech, they are toxic. They induced the Democrat lockdowns with Covid hysteria. That resulted in the election of Biden, a drop in the economy, a $1.7 trillion bunko heist hall to the owners. What foreign adversary has ever done that to is.

Beyond the treason and toxicity, they are unethical. Their bias viloates the journalism code of ethics. That makes their negligence per se. Yet they are immunized by the scumbag lawyer profession.

The sole exception is C-SPAN. Brian Lambsaid he counted stories to keep the balance. No other exception.

[Rossami]

Let's run the timing of that.

- Vladimir Putin has been president of Russia from 2000 to 2008 and again from 2012 to present. Putin become more dictatorial over time but independent journalism survives during all those years.
- Russia passes 'fake news' law in March 2022. Independent journalism crashes in mere months.

Okay, it's probably trivially true that dictatorships like to impose rules like the 'fake news' law. But the more relevant truth is that "running the country as a dictatorship" was not the proximate cause - passing the 'fake news' law was.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami, do you favor government intervention to compel internet platforms to provide equal access for everyone? Was it wrong for Twitter to ban Trump? Should government do something about that?

[Currentsitguy]

A healthy free society can only function when there is free and open discourse on all subjects, even those we find extreme and distressing. If them primary means of discourse happen to be in private hands then some mechanism must be in place to ensure no voice is frozen out. Despite the arguments made about private platforms having the right to pick and chose what voices they allow there can be little doubt there are those who hide behind that fact to silence those their disagree with, of wish to not be heard from at all.

It's not healthy for society. The best antiseptic to widely repugnant views is the light of day, and if you fear your ideas will only survive if dissent is repressed I think it is more of a reflection of your views than theirs.

[Currentsitguy]

Wow my typing stinks today. Serves me right for switching keyboards.

[Rossami]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with either Martinned's claim about causation or my rebuttal.

Nevertheless, I will answer your non sequiturs.
- No, government should not compel internet platforms to provide equal access.
- Yes, it was wrong morally and as a matter of social policy for Twitter to ban Trump even if it was entirely legal for them to do so. (Whether it was in fact legal is questionable given the promises Twitter made in their terms of service but that's an entirely different issue.)
- The only thing the government should be doing about Twitter is adjudicating fairly when users complain about violations of their terms of service. Maybe there's a role for government in ensuring that the contracts are truly voluntary and balanced but that's it.

[Krayt]

- No, government should not compel internet platforms to provide equal access

Yet a couple of year earlier, these principled folk were all about the opposite with net neutrality.

The correct answer is neither case.

[Krayt]

To those with itchy trigger fingers, don't bother. I'm tired of your threading the needle through ridiculously tortuous windings.

[gormadoc]

It's pretty easy to attribute the collapse to the recent laws when all the outlets blame those laws for why they closed down.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It's pretty easy to attribute the collapse to the recent laws when all the outlets blame those laws for why they closed down.

You have a better explanation?

[AmosArch]

Authoritarians of different stripes use the same tools. Trying to divert attention away from Russian speech suppression because you know your team does the same is like those American nationalists you hypocritically hate so much deflecting any criticism of anything America does because only 'the bad guys' can be bad.

[Ed Grinberg]

It's a good thing our government wouldn't think of doing anything like this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board

[Krychek_2]

Yeah, with the primary major difference being that our government doesn't actually do it; someone may occasionally float a bad idea, which is what happened here, but the really bad ideas usually don't make it past the trial balloon stage.

[FivebySixThree]

oh you can be damn sure they would have done it if they thought they would still control both houses of Congress in 2022.

[Krychek_2]

Then why did a significant amount of opposition to it come from Democrats?

[Currentsitguy]

I think we can thank whatever powers that be that both parties still have Civil Libertarian wings.

[Krychek_2]

I think that's true. I also think our politics has become so tribal (as the comments here will demonstrate) that it has become virtually impossible for some people to admit that the other side is anything other than pure evil.

[DaivdBehar]

KryKry. The fight is over the spoils.

[Krychek_2]

Also, keep in mind that this was an advisory panel that had no actual authority to do anything other than make recommendations.

[Tempe Jeff]

As did the advisory to have Star Chambers adjudicate 'rape' cases on college campuses.

[Krychek_2]

OK, you're obviously unfamiliar with the facts here. The disinformation advisory panel had the authority to make recommendations *as to how the law should be changed, if at all.* That's not changing the law, that's having a discussion about whether the law should be changed.

[Rossami]

I think you're being somewhat optimistic in your interpretations, Krychek. Yes, the White House press releases said that their scope and authority would be limited to "recommendations". But a) that explanation of limited scope was only announced after the pushback against the Board was already apparent and b) do you really trust them to have stayed within those boundaries? Has any other Executive Branch agency ever felt itself so constrained?

The difference is not that "our government doesn't actually do it" - it's that our citizens won't let their government do it.

[Krychek_2]

But in order for them to actually make law they need to either be Congress, or a government agency acting within the scope of authority from Congress. This was neither.

Besides which, in light of the blowback that came just from the panel’s existence, imagine if they’d tried to actually regulate disinformation. Both parties would have been all over it.

[Krayt]

A government ministry of truth in America turned down as a trial balloon? It's the thought that counts!

I doubt these folk will lose their job, hireling or elected. But they should.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah, with the primary major difference being that our government doesn't actually do it

What part of "think of doing" did you have the hardest time understanding?

[wreckinball]

Didn't Ukraine declare the opposition party illegal? Pot meet kettle.

[apedad]

I suppose it depends on what the opposition party is doing.

If it's purely political, then yeah that's a bad thing to declare them illegal.

If it's actively engaged with the enemy, then throw them in jail.

[DaivdBehar]

The Democrat Party is the servant of the Chinese Commie Party. That is to enrich the billionaire owners by kowtowing for access to their market. Some of them need to go to jail.

[wreckinball]

Would being anti-war be considered that? Or possibly just anti-Zelensky?

We have some of that going on here too.

Best to just allow free speech

[shawn_dude]

We threw entire families into prison camps during WWII because of their race (Japanese). Do you think imprisoning people who may not even support a wartime enemy but merely share their race is an acceptable limitation on their freedoms?

[FivebySixThree]

Ukraine is like what, the only slightly less corrupt than Russia?

[Currentsitguy]

I don't think anyone sane is arguing Ukraine is some sort of latter day democratic Utopia, It doesn't change the fact that allowing the Russian bear free reign in a war of territorial conquest in Europe is a danger to us all.

[GKHoffman]

That is not a fact. It's an opinion, and mostly speculative at that.

[Krayt]

We stopped dictatorship on the move over other dictatorships in the mid east, over oil.

Surely stopping the same in Europe carries some benefit? Eternal shame to those lickers-of-strongmen-sacs who threw up their hands and said, "What do I care?"

You should care a great deal, even if you choose to do nothing for practical reasons, like your own lives or treasure.

[Currentsitguy]

I seem to recall from history a lot of people made the same argument in 1938, 39, 40, and finally 41.

Evil must be confronted and pushed back. In a world where information can circle the globe in instantaneously and weapons that can destroy whole cities in a matter of minutes no one has the luxury of saying things that happen thousands of miles away are not our concern.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Might as well say it again. The only safe policy for a free press is to promote diversity and profusion among private publishers, and to prevent government from having any say whatever* about what should be published or what should not be published.

*With an exception for libel, but only insofar as government enacts a private cause of action, and facilitates civil trials among private parties. Criminal libel should not be a thing.

[Jerry B.]

Seriously, guys. Don't give the Democrats any ideas.

[Cal Cetín]

Behold the bottom of the slippery slope. Now forget what you just saw and start skiing down the slope. You can stop any time.