User:Davide Denti (OBC)/Sandbox

Commissioner for Human Rights (ombudsman)
Russia's ombudsman, named officially the Commissioner for Human Rights, is appointed for a certain term by the Parliament. The ombudsman cannot be dismissed before the end of his term, and is not subordinate to any body of power, including the President or the Government. Russia’s 83 administrative regions have the right to elect a local ombudsman whose authority is limited to that region. Less than half have done so.

Russian Ombudsman Vladimir Lukin reported in 2006, that suggesting that freedom of speech is non-existent in Russia would be an exaggeration, the constitutional right for speech freedom is basically observed, as well as that there was no institutionalised censorship. Apparently for these very reasons journalists and publishers seldom appeal to the Commissioner protesting restrictions of their right of seeking, receiving, transferring, publishing or distributing information. Yet disguised restrictions exist to a considerable degree, they are often put through the economic pressure on mass media by the authorities and loyal business. The so-called "self-censorship" which induces journalists to refrain from disseminating information which, in their opinion, may not please the authorities, is also widespread. So in many places the right to praise the authorities is ensured, while the opposite right is just formally declared.

In 2008 annual report Vladimir Lukin wrote, that it is important to have the comprehensive legal interpretation of the terms that may limit the freedom of thought and word. He spoke against the election legislation amendment that is "a practical prohibition" of contesting candidates criticism, calling it obviously excessive. And Lukin was critical about the Law on combating extremist activities, noting that extremism and dissent must be strictly legally divided.

1990s and before
The process of democratization of the Soviet Union started with the policy of Glasnost, meaning openness or freedom of speech. As stated by Gil-Robles, that policy is still regarded within the Russian society as one of the most precious achievements of Perestroika.

According to Gil-Robles, the contemporary state of media freedom follows on from the proactive policy pursued by the Russian authorities at the beginning of the 1990s. During the 1990s the Russian society went through a period of rapid development of the traditional media.

2000s
Mass media in Russia continued to develop in 2000s, as the number of periodicals, broadcasting companies and electronic media has more than doubled from 1997 to 2006.

Following his 2004 visit to Russia, Gil-Robles reported, "At the meeting organised with the editors-in-chief of the major Russian newspapers, I noted the broadly shared opinion that freedom of speech has remained substantial since 1991. It is true that there have been several recent reports of pressure on journalists." The highest-ranked difficulty mentioned was the financial situation of the press. Most of the Moscow-based newspapers seek diverse sources of funding, "so that their independence will not be jeopardised and they will not have to turn to either the State or private shareholders, which are more often than not big industrial groups." Another specific problem was mentioned in relation to the press distribution outside the capital. While subscriptions to press was reliable in the capitals, difficulties with press subscriptions arose "in relation to other towns and cities, especially those in Siberia and the Far East".

Infrastructure
In a November 2009 address to the Federal Assembly, President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev acknowledged that Russia was ranked only as the world's 63rd country based on estimates of the level of communications infrastructure development. He stressed the necessity to provide broadband Internet access on the whole Russia's territory in five years, and to manage the transition to digital TV, as well as the fourth generation of cellular wireless standards.

Media
Following his visit to Russia in 2004, Gil-Robles noted high quality of news and reaction speed of Russia's Internet media. Virtually all the main newspapers were available on-line, some even opting for Web as a sole information outlet. Russia's press agencies (including the most important Ria-Novosti and Itar-Tass) were also well represented in the Web.

As reported by Kirill Pankratov in April 2009 in The Moscow Times: Even discounting the chaotic nature of the web, there is plenty of Russian-language material on political and social issues that is well-written and represents a wide range of views. This does not mean, though, that most Russians are well-informed of the important political and social issues of today. But this is largely a matter of personal choice, not government restrictions. If somebody is too lazy to make just a few clicks to read and become aware of various issues and points of view, maybe he deserves to be fed bland, one-sided government propaganda.

A number of Russian Internet resources provide Russian translations of the world press on a regular basis: InoSmi, InoForum, SMI2, and Perevodika.

Controversies

 * In 2004, Russia pressured Lithuania and in 2006 Sweden into shutting down the Kavkaz Center website, a site that supports creation of a Sharia state in North Caucasus and hosts videos on terrorist attacks on Russian forces in North Caucasus.


 * Magomed Yevloyev, editor of Ingushetia.org, a vocal critic of the region's administration, was murdered in August 2008.


 * At the background of December 2008 demonstrations in Vladivostok, it was reported by Kontury news website that FSB officers addressed moderators of the ru_auto Internet community with a request to remove stories about the Vladivostok protests. The major reason, as reported by a moderator of the resource, was that a number of repeating posts with the information about protests worsened some sort of statistics on people's attitudes. The moderator in question requested bloggers to publish only unique posts about protest actions.


 * In December 2009, Internet provider Yota with over 100,000 subscribers has blocked access to some Russian opposition Internet resources for its Moscow-based subscribers for few days. The block occurred after the chief prosecutor of St. Petersburg recommended the company to block access to extremist resources. In the same time, the only Internet resource listed as extremist by the Ministry of Justice of Russia is the site of Caucasian separatists KavkazCenter.ru. Since the evening of 6 December 2009, Yota opened access to all previously blocked resources, but the KavkazCenter.ru.


 * In July 2012, the Russian State Duma passed the Bill 89417-6 which created a blacklist of Internet sites containing alleged child pornography, drug-related material, extremist material, and other content illegal in Russia. The Russian Internet blacklist was officially launched in November 2012, despite criticism by major websites and NGOs.


 * On 31 March 2013, the New York Times reported that Russia was beginning 'Selectively Blocking [the] Internet'.


 * On 5 April 2013, it was confirmed by a spokesperson for the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media that Wikipedia had been blacklisted over the article 'Cannabis Smoking' on Russian Wikipedia.


 * On 7 August 2013, the Central District Court of the city of Tver, located 100 miles (roughly 160 km) north of Moscow, ruled that the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses should be banned throughout the Russian Federation. On 22 January 2014 the Regional Court of Tver ruled in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses and reversed the earlier ruling by the lower court. The Regional Court conducted a new trial, which concluded that the decision of the Central District Court was unjustified, since there was no legal reason to ban the site.

Regional media
Following his visit to Russia in 2004, Gil-Robles reported the high degree of press development in the regions. Speaking about the obstacles that make the diversity of the press in regions being tested somewhat, Gil-Robles noted "deliberate attempts to restrict the media's freedom of expression", and the financial issues that reflect "a difficult or in some cases disastrous economic situation". "It seems to be increasingly the case that regional authorities agree to fund regional press in return for favourable treatment from it, with the result that journalists can be hampered in their work by increasingly close ties between the media and local authorities." According to Gil-Robles: "Finally, the only media to remain relatively independent in the regions are the big Moscow-based dailies, most of which carry a regional insert. As they are funded by their publishing group, they maintain a greater objectivity as regards regional authorities."

Censorship
Alexei Bayer, writing for the liberal opposition-minded Moscow Times newspaper said, in Aug. 2008, that aside from the main television channels, journalists in Russia can generally write whatever they wish and criticize and ridicule even topmost officials.

Opposition opinions
Head of the largest opposition party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov spoke in 2007 in support of the press freedom: In the meantime you, the journalists, can also rely on us. We are the last bastion of speech freedom and democracy in Russia. Without us there would be such extent of crime and the police state, that all of you would do bad. Essentially, you hear and watch that every day. You are treated now very simply: if you say something wrong, you are thrown from your job in 24 hours. But we will guarantee the speech freedom and normal democratic elections. The country's socialist party, Fair Russia has the program that involves the following points: Our party speaks in support of mass media defence from the pressure of commercial and governmental structures. We are for the responsibility in the cause of realization of speech freedom principle. The speech freedom must rely on the moral and ethical norms and be subject to the corporate ethics of the mass media. The media must held responsible for the "pollution of man's informational environment", and the society must control the quality of the information. The television is a powerful means to influence the moral and ethical condition of the society, and we have no right to ignore its contents. The party speaks in support of the open informational society. We believe it's principally important to provide the Internet access for every citizen of the country. The country's nationalist party LDPR makes the following statements in its program: For LDPR the basic norm is that a person must be that much free, as one's freedom doesn't start to restrict freedom of a different person. The country's liberal democratic party Right Cause makes the following points in its program: We do not need charity gifts, but the liberty — liberty of choice, liberty of business, liberty of the word and the equal rights for everyone. That all is only possible under the effective power, responsible before the society and the law. We need the order based not on the right of the force and privileges but on the law, the single one for everybody. We united in the name of the principle "The state is for a person, but not a person is for the state."... We consider the free media the most important institute of the civilian society, the means of control over the authorities. Only the media, independent from both the state will and the private corporate interests may be the effective tool of the democratic system. We speak for the establishment of the media managed by the society, including TV, radio and a newspaper. We are for strengthening the rights of the media to receive from the state or other bodies of power any not secret information after an inquiry, while the refuse to provide the information or its deliberate skewing must be punished by the Administrative or the Criminal Code. We are against state endowments paid to the media, including the ones established by the state bodies or other structures, as such endowments are a form of pressure imposed on the media. In the same time we are for broadening the taxation privileges for the media, including the ones related to advertising revenues. We are against the free interpretation of the limitations imposed on the activities of the media under pretexts of combating the terrorism, incitement of social or religious discord, etc., what means in practice limitation of media freedom for the sake of this or that authority benefits. The United Civil Front, headed by Garry Kasparov, who is often referred to as the "opposition leader" in the West, makes the following claims in its manifesto: Our country is ruled by the regime which stands against both the interests of Russia as a whole, and practically every its citizen. Except only for the top people in the security services and the corrupted bureaucracy, that use the state machine in their private interests. This regime makes the steady go to destroy all the institutes of the democratic society: elections, free media, independent court.... The major UCF task of the day is breaking Putin's regime, its complete dismantling. We believe that today it's already impossible to limit ourselves to the only consolation of the fact that Russia is headed towards the wrong direction. Today it is the time to come from words into the action, plainly because it will be too late tomorrow. It's this phrase — "From words to the action" — that will become the major motto of the new organization at the current stage.