Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vladimir Putin Signs Sweeping Internet-Censorship Bills (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the tightening-the-grip dept.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed two censorship bills into law Monday. One bans "fake news" while the other makes it illegal to insult public officials. Ars Technica reports on the details: Under one bill, individuals can face fines and jail time if they publish material online that shows a "clear disrespect for society, the state, the official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and bodies exercising state power." Insults against Putin himself can be punished under the law, The Moscow Times reports. Punishments can be as high as 300,000 rubles ($4,700) and 15 days in jail.

A second bill subjects sites publishing "unreliable socially significant information" to fines as high as 1.5 million rubles ($23,000). [T]he Russian government has "essentially unconstrained authority to determine that any speech is unacceptable. One consequence may be to make it nearly impossible for individuals or groups to call for public protest activity against any action taken by the state," [analyst Matthew Rojansky told the Post]

28 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. To prevent discourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is to prevent discourse on his attempts to maintain power beyond his constitutional term, whether by the Belarus union option or other means.

    1. Re:To prevent discourse by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well yea, but it will also make it illegal to claim the Earth is flat so... win some, lose some, am I right?

    2. Re:To prevent discourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Partly, but that's only a small part of the bigger picture. It's primarily because he knows there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia when it's used back against them in kind.

      This threat is already prevalent for him in some ways given that he tried the same tactic to get Le Penn in power in France, but didn't count on Macron turning up as a force of nature capable of capturing votes better than his propaganda campaigns ever could. I have no doubt French security services are already looking at ways to turn the tables under Macron's leadership therefore, given Macron himself was personally targeted by Putin. As soon as other big boys like America and the UK come on board, if their security services aren't already in spite of their inept national governance, Russia, is, frankly, fucked.

      So the only thing Putin can do is try and enact laws and powers to control and shut down the internet to try and prevent that, but the irony is that in doing so he's only pissing off his own citizens even more and speeding up his inevitable demise.

      And demise in Russia doesn't merely mean a new president, it means being knocked off with nuclear or biological weapons, it's really a case of live by the sword, die by the sword, and this maneuver by Putin is a desperate attempt to try and prevent the blowback from his actions; his policy of meddling could only realistically have worked if it had worked everywhere; but he was beaten in France, he was held back in Germany, and his candidate in the US unfortunately was stupid enough to make the security services his enemy by attacking them, so have managed to remain sufficiently independent as to not be neutralised by the effects of Putin's man in the whitehouse. Even Brexit is now beginning to falter despite once having looked inevitable and despite still seeing significant Russian funding through campaigns such as this that, unlike counter-campaigns such as Best for Britain, are not registered with the electoral commission so as to mask their funding source:

      https://www.facebook.com/ads/l...

      Mark my words, within the next 10 years Putin is done, and liberalism will return to the West as the natural leaning of human progress. The far-right (I refuse to submit to it's poor attempt at rebranding and call it alt-right) is showing it's true colours as a far bigger terrorist threat to Western society now than even ISIS and will be dealt with appropriately. The tables are turning and this act by Putin is a significant act of desperation in realisation of the fact that he's poked the lion one too many times and a shit storm is brewing for him.

    3. Re:To prevent discourse by mjwx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Partly, but that's only a small part of the bigger picture. It's primarily because he knows there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia when it's used back against them in kind.

      This threat is already prevalent for him in some ways given that he tried the same tactic to get Le Penn in power in France, but didn't count on Macron turning up as a force of nature capable of capturing votes better than his propaganda campaigns ever could. I have no doubt French security services are already looking at ways to turn the tables under Macron's leadership therefore, given Macron himself was personally targeted by Putin. As soon as other big boys like America and the UK come on board, if their security services aren't already in spite of their inept national governance, Russia, is, frankly, fucked.

      So the only thing Putin can do is try and enact laws and powers to control and shut down the internet to try and prevent that, but the irony is that in doing so he's only pissing off his own citizens even more and speeding up his inevitable demise.

      If we weren't talking about Russia I'd say you'd have an exceptionally good point.

      However Russia is not like the west, it doesn't matter how authoritarian Putin gets there will be no popular uprising as there wasn't against Stalin or subsequent communists. Right now enough Russians are singing Putin's praises that he doesn't need to worry about fixing elections or pesky term limits, a lot of Russians think that Putin has made Russia strong again. Many of these people are also willing to patrol the streets and report their neighbours for being unpatriotic citizens. Most Russians have never known any other life except under the heel of another Russian and as long as the foot in the boot on their neck is a Russian foot, they seem to be content to accept it.

      Putin wants to keep the west destabilised as the west is pretty much the only threat to his dictatorship. I'm guessing he's hoping to well and truly be in power by the time Trump is gone and Brexit has been sorted.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re: To prevent discourse by Mab_Mass · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Men can be women" is established left-wing dogma these days

      While you're right that support of transgender rights is a left-wing position, the issue is more complicated than simply insisting that "men can be women." In fact, all of the positions listed in the original post are gross oversimplifications of complicated positions designed to appear stupid. This is, at its heart, the very definition of caricatures.

      For the sake of trying to illuminate some of this complexity, let's just try to unpack this single issue, shall we? (I assume that I'm probably wasting my time, as conversations on the internet rarely change people's opinions, but I'm bored at work.)

      First off, how do you define what is even means to be "men" vs. "women"? We all have some basic common-sense ideas, but none of them work as solid definitions. If we try to define things at the chromosome level, you can try to say that XX is a woman and that XY is a man, but what about XXY or XYY or XXXY? There are more, but you get the idea. If we then say that is complicated, but we can define based upon external genitalia, things get even more complicated. For one, there are hermaphrodites - where do they go? Also, some people have the standard XX or XY genotypes yet have external genitalia consistent with the opposite sex. I work in biotech and a colleague of mine tells a story of working for a prenatal genetic testing group that found an expecting mother had an XY genotype with a pure female phenotype.

      Already, just trying to define terms, we are forced to abandon any kind of simplistic binary gender identity. It turns out that things are more complicated, even if we only focus on concrete issues like genotypes and external physiology.

      Next, we turn to the even more complicated issues of sexual identity. In other words, how does any given person identify their own gender? I know very little about you personally, but I'll guess (based upon /. demographics) that you think of yourself as a man. (I also am a man, FWIW) When is it that you made this decision? Have you ever considered yourself or thought of yourself as a woman? Personally, I haven't. I'm a dude, and I've always seen myself that way. In other words, my gender identity was not a choice, but rather something that is intrinsic to who I am.

      Now, imagine that you have this same sense of being a particular gender, but the organs between your legs don't match your particular sense of self. Most people's identities match their genitals, but for some people, they don't.

      The current "left-wing dogma" is that people should get to decide for themselves their own gender identity, based upon the same intrinsic sense that you are using to identify your own gender, regardless of their genitals.

      The statement "men can be women" misses this complexity. Instead, it tries to mix up various terms and frames the whole issue in a way that tries to deny all of the complexity mentioned above. That is what makes it a caricature.

      As a side note, why should anyone else even give a shit about my gender? In a great many ways, allowing a flexible gender identity should be considered the right-wing, libertarian position. After all, unless I'm trying to have sex with someone, I really don't give a rat's ass how their clothing, etc. relates to what is under the clothing.

  2. Clever girls by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they've basically made it so they (the state, the gov, politicians etc) can say anything they want and any one who might question it will be hit with "disrespect for society, the state, the official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and bodies exercising state power." and anyone not state sanctioned can be pulled on "unreliable socially significant information". Trump is probably checking to see if he can get away with that one too.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Clever girls by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trump is probably checking to see if he can get away with that one too.

      Um, it's literally the Democrats who are going all in for online censorship. They just conveniently have the private sector CEOs of the communications media on their site.

      Your comment conveniently overlooks Fox News and Sinclair media. Is that because you think they are the only ones who are fair and balanced or do you just not count them as part of the communications media because you think they channel god's word straight into your living room?

    2. Re:Clever girls by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not me dude, luckily he's literally not my president so I couldn't give a shit, but he does seem to be the one with the hurt feelings. Twitter rants all the time because tv people joked and hurt his ickle wickle feelwings :_( Awww whassa matter poor little snowflake? If he can put a stop to people criticising him you know for a fact he'd jump at the chance. It might even over take his wall on the list of things to pretend to be doing.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  3. The second North Korea by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am so glad that I no longer live in Russia since the age of 3-4 years, though its my birthplace.

    1. Re:The second North Korea by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Welcome to the USA...

      I live in Armenia.

    2. Re:The second North Korea by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Funny

      Welcome to the USA...

      I live in Armenia.

      It's spelled AMERICA, pal.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Re:nothing new by Tomahawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is 'freedom of speech' actually entrenched in the laws or constitution in every country?
    In the US it wasn't until the first amendment was ratified.

    Does it have the same meaning in every country?

    Also, does the Government of every country treat it the same?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  5. Re:It's not an insult... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Saying "Putin has a big nose", then, isn't an insult, it's just a fact.

    Hence the new laws. Pointing out an inconvenient truth about Putin or his cronies might technically not be an insult, but you can be sure it will de deemed "disrespectful to the state" and punished accordingly.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  6. New Zealand by Kunedog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No post on NZ's internet (and more) censorship?

    1. Re:New Zealand by Highdude702 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course not, that's good censorship.

  7. Re:It's not an insult... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ex-Putin Adviser Who Died in U.S. Had Broken Neck, Report Says

    The official ruling was that Mikhail Lesin, 57, died accidentally of blunt force trauma after falling repeatedly in his room while intoxicated

    https://www.haaretz.com/world-...

    Go ahead and insist that you're right.

  8. Re:nothing new by Highdude702 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, that is until the data centers get harassed into not letting you use their services, and the same with your payment processors. and well we've seen what really happens when you try to run your own service.

  9. The court jester by Evtim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I once read an interesting commentary from a historian. He was discussing the futile attempts of several (rather) competent kings of my country and how every time the state got rich and prosperous they would start some new wars, usually with their eyes fixed on the throne in Constantinople and then ruin the country trying to conquer it...

    The scholar then spends a whole chapter of his book on the phenomenon of the court jester and how incredibly useful for a king it was that there is at least one person in the kingdom who can tell the truth to power! Remarking that the only Slavic king to ever have a jester was Peter the Great, who was of course heavily influenced by ideas from Western Europe. The jester survived for two months, after that he was sent to Siberia to tell jokes to the polar bears and the king (tsar actually) never got another one. I noted that not only Slavic tsars but no other ruler apart from the Western kings had a jester....though I think there was something like that in ancient Rome (standup philosopher, hey! Ohh, a professional bulshitter! Did you bulshit anyone last week? Did you TRY bulshitting anyone?)

    Anyhow, I always assumed that under democracy, particularly with the aid of the net all of us can be the court jester. And that politicians would be wise enough (dream on!) to realize the usefulness of it...how else would they know (just like kings of old) what are the real concerns and troubles of the people.

    Alas, not only everyone outside the West doesn't support telling truth to power; now it is questioned and slowly eroded here as well. From both sides of the political spectrum. Sad!

    1. Re:The court jester by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe you are highly incorrect about 'the only Slavic king to ever have a jester'.

      Having a jester was a norm in medieval kingdoms of Poland, Czechia, Croatia

      Russia is actually quite non-Slavic country with very strong Mongol and authoritharian influence - if you compare with Polish, Ukrainian or Balkan chaos and weak states or Czechs approach to religion - it is Russia that does not fit Slavic state standard.

  10. Unreliable by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course "unreliable socially significant information" is so nebulous it could refer to any information. 'Unreliable' doesn't even mean the same thing as 'false', it could just meant questionable or controvertible. I expect this to be heavily subject to selective enforcement, so those who make any inconvenient statements can be fined a year's wages to be made an example of. From what I can find, median per-capita income in Russia is ~$6,500/year. Interestingly, their PCI peaked at ~$9,700/yr in 2013, right before the annexation of Crimea and the associated sanctions. I bet the people aren't very happy their income has dropped by a third in the past 6 years.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  11. Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually you can do that.

    There's the principle of the "public figure" in the US and the EU. So if you're a public figure like a politician, celebrity, or whatever who is in the position to utilize their social status to influence other people, you do not enjoy the same privacy and defamation rights as regular people.

    This is to ensure that powerful people can be criticized for their actions and can't abuse their fame and wealth in legal systems that are already stacked in their favor due to their wealth and fame.

  12. Surprised, anyone? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He remains what he has always been: a KGB thug.

  13. Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on? by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Public Service Announcement: The right to free speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say.

    It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.

    The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.

    If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show cancelled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.

    It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  14. People in the west used to ridicule for this by Roodvlees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, many westeners want the same in their own countries...

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  15. Re:Next week, Trump attempts the same by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hey, Trump loves laws like this, he praises Putin and Xi.

  16. Re: Next week, Trump attempts the same by terrycarlino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I absolutely do.

    But pretending that Trump or the Republicans would do this if they could, while conveniently forgetting that Obama and the Democrats actually tried, is a shill move.

    Real conservatives are constitutionalists and honor the Bill or Rights.

    Unfortunately we've come the point where we're not allowed to criticize people for their actions. Someone can be a war hero of undisputed bravery and still be a political back-stabber. Someone can hold beliefs we disagree with and still hold them with integrity and not be evil. Yet somehow too many people seem to think we're living in a cartoon where all of the opposition works for Satan and any criticism is equivalent to marking someone with 666.

  17. Re:nothing new by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't have free speech if "hate speech" is banned. Heck, Putin has just effectively relabeled speech against the government as "hate speech". China long ago did the same, but broader, calling any speech that disrupts social harmony "hate speech".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  18. Re:Trump?!?!? What fucking planet do you live on? by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Stop being a drama queen. You. Are. Not. Being. Oppressed.
    2. Donald Trump is a liar, a crook, a thief, a con artist, a loudmouth braggart phony and the very model of a toxic boss. He has been these things IN PUBLIC for decades longer than the Evil Liberal Deep State Fake News Mainstream Media has had any reason to care about his politics. Now he starts whistling all the Fascist dog whistles and suddenly he's the Messiah.
    3. Which "traditional values" are you talking about? The one that says the wifey should be barefoot and pregnant? That the cullud people should know their place? That the Feelthy Queers need to remain in the closet? That I'd better see you in church bright and early Sunday morning OR ELSE?
    4. Again: When tyranny comes to America, it will be the Fourth of July every day, not black helicopters, and YOU will be on the tyrant's side.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze