State Duma Deputy Alexei Mitrofanov, who heads theDuma committee regulating themedia, came up with anew idea two weeks ago tofight theKremlin’s battle against “insulting speech” aimed atpoliticians: increase thefines against media outlets to45 million rubles ($1.4 million) forsuch offenses. What’s more, Mitrofanov wants toestablish agovernment “regulator” (read: censor) who will decide outside ofa court oflaw exactly what constitutes “offensive speech.”

It would seem that Mitrofanov’s understanding offree-speech rights were shaped byhis high school anduniversity studies ofVladimir Lenin andAndrei Vyshinsky, Josef Stalin’s prosecutor general andlegal force behind thepolitical purges inthe 1930s. It is safe tosay that Edmund Burke, John Locke or J.S. Mill were never part ofMitrofanov’s curriculum, nor did they make it onto his weekend reading list after theSoviet collapse.

Thestraw that broke Mitrofanov’s back was arecent commentary inMoskovsky Komsomolets titled “Political Prostitution Changes Its Gender,” which created auproar after thearticle’s targets, three United Russia deputies, said they were offended. Fellow United Russia members andthe three other factions inthe Duma were also indignant andthreatened toput anend tothe “abuse offree speech” inRussia.

Deputies want toshield themselves fromlegitimate media criticism. They want theprivileges ofpublic office without thepublic scrutiny.

Unfortunately, Mitrofanov andhis supporters don’t understand thefundamental difference between libel andslander, which is acivil offense inmost Western countries andsubject topunitive fines, and”offensive speech,” which is largely protected inthe West (with afew narrow exclusions inseveral European countries that ban “hate speech,” including denying or justifying theHolocaust).

ForMitrofanov andmany other Duma deputies, here is asimple illustration ofthe difference between defamation (libel andslander) and”offensive speech” aimed atpoliticians: During Vladimir Putin’s televised, annual call-in show inDecember 2010, he said opposition leaders Vladimir Ryzhkov andBoris Nemtsov “stole several billion dollars together with [Boris] Berezovsky inthe 1990s.”

This is aclassic defamation case because it centers ona contentious issue offact: Did Nemtsov andRyzhkov, indeed, steal billions ofdollars, or was Putin’s public statement made with reckless disregard ofthe truth? Not surprisingly, Putin won the2011 defamation case that Nemtsov andRyzhkov brought against him ina Moscow court, showing that Putin has more “freedom ofspeech” than all Russian newspapers, radio andtelevision stations combined.

TheMoskovsky Komsomolets “political prostitution” headline, however, would clearly be protected speech inthe Western legal tradition because it fits intothe category ofopinion, fair comment andcriticism all themore since “political prostitution” is awidely accepted political term. Lenin is considered tohave coined thephrase 90 years ago, which he directed atLeon Trotsky; since then, it has been used thousands oftimes bythe media tocriticize politicians. Inthis case, Moskovsky Komsomolets wrote that thethree United Russia deputies were engaged in”political prostitution” because they had repeatedly changed their political positions based onself-interest andservility tothe Kremlin anassertion that was backed up byfacts cited inthe op-ed.

Ina similar sense, when Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin suggested last year ina Twitter message that Madonna was aprostitute, this was also protected speech, regardless ofhow tasteless andinsulting thecomment might have been. (Needless tosay, Madonna did not sue Rogozin forhis “offensive speech.”)

Behind Mitrofanov’s patently false argument that Moskovsky Komsomolets “abused” its free speech rights is acynical, cowardly attempt toshield deputies fromlegitimate criticism. Deputies want tohave their cake andeat it, too. They want tohave all ofthe privileges ofpublic office without thepublic scrutiny that necessarily comes with thejob. Inopen anddemocratic societies, politicians’ decisions, behavior andbackground are placed under ahuge public microscope. InRussia, thepeople have aright toknow if their deputies plagiarized their dissertations, have undeclared luxury real estate abroad, or, yes, engaged inpolitical prostitution byselling out their political principles tothe highest bidder.

Read the original here:
Putin Has More Free Speech Than All Media