The Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes received an appeal from N.E. Fonareva, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation State Committee on Antimonopoly Policy and Support of New Economic Structures, requesting an examination of mass media dissemination of inaccurate information regarding the draft federal law “On Advertising,” introduced in the State Duma by the Russian Federation Government, and of tendentious and unobjective publications devoted to analysis of this draft.
After studying numerous publications presented by the claimant that discussed the draft law and after hearing the accounts of N. Fonareva, representatives of newspaper editorial offices, advertising agencies, and other interested parties (Iu. Iakutin, B. Piliatskin, A. Politkovskaia, V. Filippov, N. Osipova, I. Krylov, N. Vainonen, I. Glebov, and others) at the February 21, 1995 session, the Judicial Chamber has determined:
The appearance in the mass media of a series of publications on the draft advertising law is well-founded. It is also understandable that the press is concerned about what the law on advertising will look like and its consequences for economic reform, the establishment of a market economy, and the formation of an economic base for independent mass media.
In this connection, as N. Fonareva also confirmed in her statement, the opinion of editorial offices and journalists, including criticism, demands due attention and consideration in drafting and adopting the draft federal law on advertising. It can contribute to improvement of the law.
At the same time, this critique and the accompanying references to the text of the draft law, other official documents, and legal norms on advertising must be objective, accurate, and professional.
However, a number of mass media publications regarding the draft federal law on advertising do not meet these requirements. They contain inaccurate information about the text of the draft law and individual provisions, contravene norms of Russian legislation, and include statements that insult the drafters.
For example, the press disseminated insulting allegations that the drafters were seeking to prepare a law that would enable state officials to fill their own pockets (I. Krylov, MOSKOVSKAIA PRAVDA, February 14, 1995).
Publications carelessly misstated the draft law’s ban on mass media advertisement of tobacco products and alcohol, which, incidently, is also contained in existing Russian legislation (the Russian Federation Fundamental Principles on Protection of Citizens’ Health, the RF Presidential Decree of February 17, 1995, No. 161), as a total prohibition on advertisement of these products (A. Dmitriev, MOSKOVSKIE NOVOSTI, No. 64, December 18-25, 1994; I. Krylov, EKONOMIKA I ZHIZN, No. 1, January 1995). I. Krylov was especially active in his critical interpretation of the ban on advertisement of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. He asserted that this contradicted world experience. However, he omitted to mention that article 15 1 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (Strasbourg, May 5, 1989) prohibits the advertisement of tobacco products and contains strict limitations on advertisement of alcoholic beverages of all types.
Several publications used legal terms incorrectly (“censorship,” “system of judicial expertise,” etc.) with the goal of discrediting individual provisions of the draft law and their conceptual basis (I. Glebov, TSENTR-PLUS; V. Piliatskin, IZVESTIIA, etc.).
This type of publication, which contained unreliable, inaccurate information, could cause readers to have a negative impression of the draft federal law on advertising and also of the intentions of the state organs that prepared the draft law.
In examining N. Fonareva’s appeal, the Judicial Chamber does not encroach in any way on the competence of other state organs, especially the legislature. It considers the subject of the Antimonopoly Committee’s appeal—that several publications insulted the honor and dignity of Committee employees.
The sole subject of Judicial Chamber examination in this case was the accuracy and objective interpretation in mass media discussions of the draft law on advertising.
In light of the foregoing and guided by Article 9 of the Statute on the Judicial Chamber, the Judicial Chamber has decided:
1. To recognize that, along with legitimate and constructive criticism of the draft advertising law, several mass media organs, including the aforementioned, provided distorted versions of the actual text of the law, incorrect use of legal terms, and groundless allegations regarding negative intentions of the drafters. Their objective was to create insufficient public support for the goals and content of the draft law.
2. To direct the attention of mass media editorial offices to the need to be more careful in verifying facts and information in the preparation and publication of materials that evaluate drafts of normative, legal acts, including the draft law on advertising.
3. To publish this decision in ROSSIISKAIA GAZETA.
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A.V. Vengerov
Published in ROSSIISKAIA GAZETA on March 23, 1995.
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster
The Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes received an appeal from the State Duma of the Federal Assembly reporting that at the February 24, 1995 session of the State Duma deputies assessed several segments of the VGTRK television program “Newspaper Histories” (“Fascism in Russia”) as being of a provocative and inciting nature, and promoting the kindling of national enmity and hatred. The appeal requested that the Judicial Chamber examine the case and take measures within its competence.
After studying the videotranscript of the February 22 program “Newspaper Histories” presented by VGTRK, newspaper articles, to which the program referred (“From KGB to LDPR. Career of a Nazi”—MOSKOVSKIE NOVOSTI, September 4-11, 1994; “RNE Intends to Come to Power Soon”—NEZAVISIMAIA GAZETA, February 10, 1995), and a number of other publications and materials and after hearing in judicial session the parties’ representatives (I.I. Zablotskii, E.A. Shcherbinskii, E.V. Tuinov), the program’s authors (O. Iu. Vakulovskii, T.S. Bondarenko); the representatives of VGTRK and the “Oblik” television company (E.V. Dmitrieva, T.V. Men’shikova); the representative of the “Sirena” corporation (N.P. Zarubina); and other interested parties, the Judicial Chamber has determined:
The appearance in the mass media of materials exposing Russian fascism was justified. The Judicial Chamber has addressed this subject often. In its decisions “On mass media publications fostering social and national intolerance” (July 14, 1994); “On the Appeal to the Judicial Chamber by State Duma Chairman of the Russian Federation Federal Assembly I.P. Rybkin regarding the VGTRK television program “Great Scandal” (November 25, 1994); “On Ia. Mogutin’s publication “Chechen Knot. 13 Theses” in NOVYI VZGLIAD (February 21, 1995) and in several other decisions, the Judicial Chamber has stressed the high degree of social danger presented by dissemination of hate speech, nationalistic and extremist views, and use of the mass media for these goals.
Accordingly, the Judicial Chamber has observed that existing legislation establishes conditions for battling the dissemination of propaganda regarding the superiority of one nation over another, their incitement of social discord, national enmity and hatred and the formation on this illegal basis of a para-military organization that displays the essential features of fascism. The essence of the matter is to fulfill the laws of Russia. The Judicial Chamber has also called attention to the fact that slogans of national revival, strengthening of statehood, and patriotism have nothing in common with fascism, which represents a real social danger.
The Judicial Chamber shares the concern of the public, including the authors of the “Newspaper Histories” television program, about the spread of fascism in Russia today.
The full title of the television program (“Fascism in Russia.Who?”) and also the authors’ text are testimony to the aim of its creators to show Russian fascism in the faces and actual carriers of fascist ideology and practice, the motive forces and forms of fascism.
To a certain degree this was successful. For example, the television program showed the rock group “Krek,” which openly and with impunity demonstrated to its audience its fascist nature. This confirmed that in Russia fascism is a normal, natural phenomenon. The program convincingly showed the profascist character of the armed group “Vervol’f” [Werewolf], against which legal security organs have taken appropriate measures.
In the authors’ opinion, the figure that personified and at the same time exposed Russian fascism was a certain A. Vedenkin, as the alleged “financial genius of Zhironovskii,” “deputy leader of the RNE Barkashov,” deputy “minister of defense” Achalov, “KGB officer.”
The Judicial Chamber considers the broadcast of the “Russian fascism” program timely and justified. The program alarmed the public and became grounds for urging authorities to take action. These were positive consequences of journalistic investigation.
At the same time, however, the program used insufficiently verified and even refuted facts, especially regarding the purchase by A. Vedenkin and Co. of a 90% share of the international technology corporation “Sirena.” This caused damages to the corporation.
In reaching this decision within its competence the Judicial Chamber takes into consideration the fact that the procuracy has brought criminal proceedings against A. Vedenkin and that the LDPR faction thus far has not refuted in accordance with established procedures the allegation that Vedenkin is an active participant in party activities.
Based on the above-stated facts, the Judicial Chamber has decided:
1. To recognize that the television program “Newspaper Histories” was not of a provocative and inflammatory character and that its authors did not violate Russian legislation.
2. To draw the attention of the authors of the “Fascism in Russia.Who?” television program to the fact that the use of insufficiently verified and inaccurate information is impermissible.
To take into consideration the readiness of VGTRK to correct its admitted mistake regarding the “Sirena” corporation.
3. To observe that under current conditions it is necessary to develop legislation on the struggle against fascism, including providing legal accountability for use and propagandizing of fascist attributes and symbols.
4. To publish this decision in ROSSIISKAIA GAZETA.
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A.B. Vengerov
Published in ROSSIISKAIA GAZETA on March 29, 1995.
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster.
The Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes has received an appeal from the State Duma of the Russian Federation Federal Assembly, reporting that at its April 12, 1995 session the State Duma assessed S. Parkhomenko’s publication “We Must Choose Better” in SEGODNIA, no. 65 (April 8, 1995) as insulting not only State Duma deputies but also the voters.
After examining the publication and hearing from State Duma deputies (T.A. Astrakhankina and V.N. Volkov); representatives of the State Duma apparatus (I.I. Zablotskii; E.A. Shcherbinskii; N.A. Sautin); the editor-in-chief of SEGODNIA (D.V. Ostal’skii); the author (S.B. Parkhomenko); and the secretary of the Moscow Union of Journalists (I.S. Simanchuk), the Judicial Chamber has determined:
In issue no. 65 of April 8, 1995, SEGODNIA published material from its parliamentary correspondent S. Parkhomenko, which was entitled “We Must Choose Better.” This article contained, in particular, the following statements: “We will remain alone face to face with our parliament. And we must somehow live in the future under the laws written in that farce. We will have to send our children off to the army—in accordance with the procedure just approved by that crowd of buffoons. We will have to pay taxes—at the rate just determined at that clowns’ ball.”
It was this very paragraph, along with several other phrases and definitions, that evoked a sharply negative reaction from State Duma deputies.
The Judicial Chamber, first of all, confirms the right of journalists to provide a critical assessment of the activity of state organs, organizations, officials, and deputies as well. This right represents the practical fulfillment of the principle of freedom of mass information, which is established in the Constitution.
At the same time, it is absolutely impermissible to abuse freedom of mass information. In carrying out his professional activity, a journalist is duty-bound to respect the rights, legitimate interests, and honor and dignity of citizens and organizations. It is impermissible to violate ethical norms and to use untruthful information.
The Judicial Chamber considers S. Parkhomenko’s article as falling within that very category of publications that violate the law and requirements of professional ethics.
The author, by using such words as “farce, clowns, and buffoons” to characterize the activities of the entire membership of the State Duma, violates legal and ethical norms. The publication also contained other inappropriate expressions and untruthful information. Moreover, it disparaged the features of several laws adopted by the Duma in a superficial and unfounded manner.
The Judicial Chamber cannot agree with the editor-in-chief’s (D.V. Ostal’skii) and author’s (S.B. Parkhomenko) explanations for this information dispute. Publication of materials in a so-called author’s column, if it represents an abuse of mass information, does not relieve either the author or the editor-in-chief from liability. Moreover, it does not follow from the context of the article that the sharply negative evaluation related to individual State Duma sessions or the activity of individual deputies. In an impermissibly general form, the article directly presented the parliament as a farce and all deputies as clowns and buffoons.
The Judicial Chamber also notes with regret that S. Parkhomenko’s article turned out to be only one in a series of publications, which often appear in the mass media, that are unobjective and insulting to the young institutes of statehood of democratic Russia.
Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and guided by Articles 8-10 of the Statute on the Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes, the Judicial Chamber has decided:
1. To recognize that in publishing “We Must Choose Better” in SEGODNIA on April 8, 1995 the author and editor-in-chief violated Articles 49 and 51 of the Russian Federation Law “On Mass Information Media.”
2. To reprimand the editor-in-chief D.V. Ostal’skii and the journalist S.B. Parkhomenko.
3. To publish this decision in ROSSIISKAIA GAZETA.
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A.B. Vengerov
Published in ROSSIISKAIA GAZETA on May 23, 1995.
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster.
The Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes has received appeals from the editorial board and editor-in-chief of the newspaper VECHERNIAIA UFA, Ia. B. Khusainov, regarding the legality of advertisements published in the newspaper, which relate to the sale of alcoholic beverages and the activity of the Bashkir Special Commodities-Raw Materials Exchange (BSTSB).
After studying documents and materials presented by the claimant and hearing from the deputy editor-in-chief of VECHERNIAIA UFA (R.B. Faizrakhmanov), the chief specialist of the RB State Inspectorate for Protection of Freedom of the Press and Mass Information (V.S. Orlov), the RB Deputy Minister for the Press and Mass Information (A.M. Sultangariev), the head of the State-Legal Administration of the RB President (I.A. Adigamov), the claimant’s representative (V.A. Vinogradov), and RF Duma deputy A.N. Arinin, the Judicial Chamber has determined:
1. The RB State Inspectorate for Protection of Freedom of the Press and Mass Information found in the publications presented by the editorial board and editor-in-chief Ia. B. Khusainov violations of the law on advertisement of alcoholic beverages and ordered the removal of these violations. After examining these publications, the Judicial Chamber observes that several of these publications do indeed contain advertisements for alcoholic beverages (references to the “lowest prices” and “highest quality” of advertised products, with corresponding pictures as well). The State Inspectorate’s order regarding these publications is lawful.
Other publications regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages do not contain such characteristic features of advertisements (for example, the March 23, 1995 advertisement for the “Dasko” firm). This information complies with Article 437 1 of the RF Civil Code as an offer to an indefinite class of persons regarding the purchase of goods. It does not constitute an infringement of existing legislation.
The Judicial Chamber also takes into consideration the fact that publication of such offers (those that do not contain characteristic features of advertisements) for the sale of goods, including alcoholic beverages, assists in supplying an economic base for the normal activity of the mass media.
2. In accordance with the Bashkir Republic Presidential Decree on Examining the Legality of the Creation and Activity of the BSTSB, the Ufa City Soviet as founder of VECHERNIAIA UFA (and other newspapers) and the RB Ministry of Press and Information were asked to examine the responsibility of the leaders of these publications for the losses sustained by legal and physical persons as a result of the insulting remarks about the BSTSB that appeared in many of the newspaper’s advertisements.
In their appeal, the claimants express disagreement with a similar evaluation of VECHERNIAIA UFA’s advertising activity. They raise questions about the lawfulness of advertisements that relate to the BSTSB’s activity.
The Judicial Chamber does not agree with the claimants’ arguments and notes that the publications violate Article 36 2 of the RF Law on Mass Information Media, which provides that “the editorial office does not have the right to collect payment for placing advertisements under the guise of informational, editorial or author’s material.” It was the very absence of any indication that the publications were advertisements that promoted the communication of disinformation to readers about the BSTSB’s activities, the exchange’s financial characteristics, and the like.
Moreover, the publications violated professional journalistic ethical norms, such as those established in the contracts with the head of the exchange regarding the organization and development of an advertising campaign with the exchange’s guarantee to organize trips abroad for editorial office employees.
3. A legal evaluation of the Bashkir Republic Presidential Decree, the legal responsibility of the editorial office, other questions of a property nature, and questions regarding the participation of other organizations in causing the damages that resulted from the BSTSB’s activities are not within the Judicial Chamber’s competence and should be resolved according to established legislative procedure.
Based on the above-stated facts and guided by Articles 8 and 9 of the Statute on the Judicial Chamber, the Judicial Chamber has decided:
1. To recognize as legal the newspaper’s publications regarding sale of alcoholic beverages that did not contain the characteristic features of an advertisement.
2. To reject the rest of the claimants’ appeal to the Judicial Chamber.
3. To publish this decision in ROSSIISKAIA GAZETA.
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A.B. Vengerov
Published in ROSSIISKAIA GAZETA on June 1, 1995.
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster.