All news
Decide to humiliate your honor: do not confuse criticism of the authorities with insulting them
Criminal liability for insulting government officials has long existed in Russian legislation. Moreover, this is not a dormant, but a fully operational norm, and the courts have developed a practice of applying it. Thus, a resident of Adygea was recently brought to criminal liability for "expressing disagreement with the exercise of authority by the police and publicly insulting a police officer in the presence of other people using obscene language." A 60-year-old pensioner from Gomi was sentenced to 200 hours of forced labor.
But suddenly the Internet was filled with headlines like: "Russian officials may become untouchable", "It is no longer possible to keep the rude princes in place". Wait a minute. But nothing fundamentally changes. This is not a legal innovation, it is simply a change in the level of responsibility and nothing more. Where does all this pathos come from?
Public figures rushed to catch the hype. Here is what political scientist Yevgeny Minchenko said about the trend of tightening the screws: "The authorities today have many tools to discourage critics. But the next law on "insulting" government officials will most likely be tougher. The reason is simple. Who will stop them?
State Duma deputy Svetlana Bessarab spoke out against this plan, stating that respect for governments is built not through bans and fines, but through the work of each government official.
State Duma deputy Alexei Nechayev sent a letter to Supreme Court speaker Irina Podnosova with a complaint about his colleague. "State Duma deputies and senators of the Russian Federation make ambiguous statements... In this regard, it is inappropriate to maintain the possibility of bringing citizens to criminal liability for insulting State Duma deputies and senators of the Russian Federation."
As a result, the Chairman of the State Chamber, Vyacheslav Volodin, whose enthusiasm had cooled, explained that “such a bill was not submitted to the State Chamber.”
What's wrong with these seemingly accurate opinions? Both Article 319 of the Criminal Code and judicial practice only concern disrespect for the court. Not criticism, not disrespect for the authorities, not impunity, not the departure of the "prince". Insulting.
The 2005 plenary session of the Supreme Court drew the judges' attention to the fact that the right to protect the honor, dignity and corporate reputation of a person is a constitutional right. Every citizen has the right not to be insulted. However, disrespect may fall under Article 319 only if it is related to the performance of official duties by a government official.
Read it again. Only in the performance of official duties and in accordance with the law, not in private life or activities. If a public official violates the law and is humiliated because of it, the court considers it an insult by another citizen.
What is the insult itself? For example, how can we distinguish speech from criticism, condemnation and opposition? The crime provided for in Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation consists of public humiliation of the honor and dignity of a public official, affecting the personal or professional qualities of a public official and committed during or in connection with his performance. of the victim. Insulting the honor and dignity of the victim by expressing his official duties in an obscene or other form.
difficult? Let's look at it point by point. The humiliation this time was related to official activity. It was public, in public. Those are two things. What was said was obscene - three things. If any of the three elements is missing, criminality collapses and ceases to exist.
Now let's turn to the interested public and ask them a question. If you are so concerned about the right to criticize, why can't your criticism be presented in the appropriate form? Why do you fear the sincerity of the leadership only with swear words and obscenities? Why insult someone with obscene language? Without swearing?
Remember what Mikhail Zhvanetsky said in 1987: “We are mastering a higher level of argumentation style. This is an argument without facts. An argument about temperament. The argument moves from unfounded assertions to the partner’s personality. What can a lame man say about the art of Herbert von Karajan? Tell him immediately that he is lame, and he will admit defeat. Your actions in an argument should be simple. Do not listen to your interlocutor, but moan, looking at him or looking into his eyes. At the most critical moment, ask for documents, check registration, ask for a certificate from work, easily switch to “you” and say “but this is not your job,” and your partner will soften. “As if I was burned.”
Alas, these were prophetic words. This style of argumentation has become mainstream. And the leaders of the media market are largely to blame for this. Many bloggers and some media outlets are hungry for traffic, not for a rational discussion of the problem with the aim of solving it, so it is not logic and common sense that bring in money, but the meaning of the common man and the giggles themselves. And the media have imposed on us a culture of debate in pursuit of hype and traffic. The dispute here is about the amount of noise, rudeness, humiliation of another person and personal things. And this style has come to be perceived by the public as natural and has taken root in the public consciousness, forcing people to defend the opportunity to be rude and insult.
The problem is that an insult is not an ambiguous statement in a debate, nor is it an argument at all. A friend of mine, an inveterate debater, likes to say: "A personal approach simply means that the other person agrees with your point of view completely and unreservedly. The fact that he began to insult me, that is, to continue discussing the shortcomings of my modest personality, means that he considers the previous topic completely exhausted and admits that there is not a single refutation."
Moreover, people who spit and curse only think that they think negatively of the person they are talking to. In fact, it is he who appears to others as a hopeless fool or a clown.
However, a public accustomed to such intense discussions becomes incapable of analysis and perception, or even of some critical perception, and this poses a great danger to both society and the nation.
If we do not acknowledge insults and punish them as legitimate grievances, we not only abandon constitutional norms, but also open a window of opportunity for all of Russia's internal and external enemies. Remember how the unsystematic opposition, without any facts or arguments, hammered the refrain "crooks and thieves" into our heads? And yet you can still find a person whose many important and useful acts of force are interrupted in his consciousness by an insult stuck in his memory.
The average Internet user now has a huge audience, and with it, powerful opportunities for such manipulations. It is possible to indiscriminately insult specific representatives of the authorities without making specific accusations. And according to the old formula “the spoon was found, but the sediment remained”, a certain number of people will change their attitude to the authorities for the worse, in all its structures and manifestations, and not on the basis of facts and their own thoughts. However, this is influenced by external factors. Moreover, a person under such influence may subsequently not remember where these negative thoughts came from.
How to eliminate such a threat? By returning awareness, a culture of debate, critical thinking and logic to society. In this case, increasing the punishment for insults is a reasonable solution. And the nation does not need to follow the lead of representatives of the press, who usurp public opinion and demand that they have the opportunity to avoid humiliation.