Extremist “likes”
When deciding on the direction of action of the person who posted extremist material on the Internet or expressing their attitude to such information, courts should consider the context, form and content of the publication, as well as the presence and content of the commentary.
Such explanations of the Supreme court intends to Supplement its 2011 resolution on judicial practice on cases on crimes of an extremist orientation.
Since then, the number of cases of extremism is growing steadily, said Thursday the Supreme court judge Oleg Steepin. The active dynamics is shown for the case of excitation of hatred or enmity (article 282 of the Criminal code): if in 2012, is condemned 149 people, in 2015 — already 444. Growth provides basically the first part of this article — crimes committed using the Internet.
According to the judge, such adjustments, the Supreme court makes with the submission of the Council for human rights (HRC) under the President — there are concerned about the number of cases instituted in connection with the repost and “likes” in social networks.
But this in itself is a repost not a crime to appreciate the action when you repost to the judges should be more in detail, explained Steepin.
In addition, the Supreme court explained: in order to attract criminal liability for public appeals to implementation of actions aimed at violating Russia’s territorial integrity (article 281.1 of the criminal code), really enough words, not even followed up with action. But such appeals should be aimed at inducing certain individuals to commit specific acts: at this point, the Penal code contains other articles (for example, incitement to armed rebellion).
See also
Retired from Chuvashia was given two years probation for the repost messages “Vkontakte”
Representatives of the HRC became part of the working group that prepared the judgment confirmed a member of the HRC Pavel Chikov. But some of the proposals of human rights defenders remained unfulfilled, he says: for example, the prohibition to consider the authorities vulnerable social group in need of protection through the anti-extremist legislation (known, for example, cases where the imposed sentences for inciting hatred towards a social group “the police”).
It was also suggested not to qualify as incitement to separatism generalities on the subject of territorial integrity, if they do not contain appeals to some illegal action, because in most cases, such blanket statements are the reason for criminal prosecution. But the Supreme court virtually adopted these practices, emphasizes the pins.
Thus, the main and the only positive change proposed by the Supreme court, is a sort of a nod to the European court of human rights, which requires more rigid standards of proof in cases of freedom of speech. And now the lawyers are already citing the Supreme court will require courts to carefully examine the context of publications on the Internet. Although the goals of the current explanations so that, in practice, may not particularly be taken into account, fears of human rights: the court can always say that you have made a decision, given the context of publication and the author’s position.