Black lists: how we sued Rospotrebnadzor (part 2)

    (continuation of the habratopika “ Black Lists: how we sued Rospotrebnadzor ” dated April 3, 2013)

    On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, I was at a meeting in the Kaluga Regional Court in the case of “ Absurdopedia vs Rospotrebnadzor” (appeal court).


    I remind you that I dispute the ban on the humorous article “How to: Commit Suicide” ( copy ), which the evil uncles from Rospotrebnadzor considered suicide propaganda.

    This case is very different from the YouTube vs Rospotrebnadzor case: if the guys from Google argued that there was no information on the methods of committing suicide in the banned clip, then our case is a case of violation of constitutional rights, namely the right to literary work (Article 44 Constitution). Limit it, according to Art. 55 of the Constitution, it is possible only if there is direct harm to the "morality and health of others."

    There is no such harm in this case: not a single potential suicidal person will go to kill himself by reading THIS (but rather, and vice versa, he will not go because he has read it). But Rospotrebnadzor does not even try to prove the existence of harm: instead, it repeats the mantra "nothing can be written about suicides, because it is a priori harmful." And it is precisely with this that we are fighting - no one dares to ban the topic of a literary work.

    If Tolstoy lived and wrote to Anna Karenin these days, they would have burned her and sat contented. When dealing with such people, it is absolutely necessary to go all the way.

    Documents from the previous (Obninsky) court

    These documents were not yet received when the previous habratopik was published. Spread because they were asked about them.
    • The full court decision of April 1 (about which the previous habratopik was) was nothing interesting here (except why there was nothing interesting here). The judge did a very wonderful thing: having received a request to restore the term in the text of the initial claim , he did not consider it (according to the Civil Procedure Code, he should) and went to discuss the case on the merits (de facto reinstating the term). And then he took and justified the decision by this period (instead of the decision on the merits). This cannot be done, and this was one of the arguments of my appeal.
    • List of employees of Rospotrebnadzor who can make decisions on inclusion in the register .

    So what's up with the appeal?

    • Brief appeal (uninteresting, read the full).
    • Addition to the appeal . Clause 1 - procedural (in terms of time), Clause 2 - disproportionate actions of Rospotrebnadzor (no harm has been proven to prevent which a prohibition of the work would have been necessary), Clause 3 - quality of the grievous examinations that Rospotrebnadzor previously provided. Note that they could no longer bring any new examination (beyond those that were earlier) at the appeal stage (and we could not).

    In the harsh organization Rospotrebnadzor, apparently, they were so scared of a simple student (from whom they clearly expected that he would give up after the first instance) that this time they sent as many as two representatives (a man and a woman) to deal with this insidious villain. They even looked at me with some interest, as a rare animal with strange habits. In turn, I was assisted by the lawyer Damir Gainutdinov from the Agora human rights organization (for which many thanks to him).

    In addition to their usual position (“the applicant Barmaley eats children for breakfast”), the representatives of Rospotrebnadzor made a number of interesting statements (reproduced from memory):
    • They do not consider post-moderation of the state censorship. They told it something like this: “Censorship is if you brought us the text before publication, and we would decide whether to publish or not to publish. And here at the discretion of the authors is left to publish. But if his moral qualities were not enough, then what can we do - we had to! ” Not a bad interpretation, is it? They believe that authors are required to engage in self-censorship (!). And if the authors don’t want to burn their works themselves, then when the state does it later, this, according to Rospotrebnadzor, is not censorship, because it is “not before, but after.” And their whole system is considered to be “not censorship.”
    • “[...] the harmful effects of [suicide materials] not only on children, but also on other individuals
    • Under the title “ How to: Commit Suicide ”, you don’t need to be any specialist to understand that it is [malicious]”
    • As a bonus, the representative of Rospotrebnadzor burst out in a long eulogy to the State Duma deputies. They supposedly famously foresaw everything so that we did not have to think with our brains . They are so smart that they came up with this law! Etc.


    The court (headed by presiding judge Sychev Yu.V. ) refused to cancel censorship. Everyone is surprised. It was expected.

    We go further, up to the ECHR. Literature will be free.

    Only registered users can participate in the survey. Please come in.

    Is it possible to joke about everything?

    • 53.8% You can joke about everything. Do not like it - do not read. 1838
    • 43.4% There are topics that make me joke. But this is not a reason to ban these topics to others. 1482
    • 2.7% It is necessary to prohibit joking on some topics. 93

    Also popular now: