Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Issue 23 Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law November 27, 1995
Recent Decisions of the President's Judicial Chamber on
Information Disputes
1. ON THE APPEAL OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION FEDERAL ASSEMBLY STATE
DUMA DEPUTY V.N. LYSENKO REGARDING INACCURATE INFORMATION BROADCAST ON
THE “VREMIA” PROGRAM (ORT), September 22, 1995, No. 27(64)
The Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber
for Information Disputes has received an appeal from Russian Federation
Federal Assembly State Duma deputy V.N. Lysenko.
His statement points out that despite repeated appeals
to journalists, they continue to omit the first name of deputy Nikolai
Lysenko in their reports. In doing so, especially in stories about deputy
Nikolai Lysenko’s unethical conduct in the State Duma, they cause significant
moral injury to the electoral bloc “Pamfilova- Gurov- Lysenko” and to deputy
V.N. Lysenko personally. According to the statement, such expressions were
disseminated on the “Vremia” program (ORT) at 9:00 p.m. and on “Segodnia”
at 10:00 p.m. on September 11, 1995.
Prompt correction (refutation) of factual errors disseminated
by the mass media, which are of societal interest, is within the Judicial
Chamber’s competence.
After examining the presented materials and hearing
the testimony of Russian Federation Federal Assembly State Duma deputy
V.N. Lysenko, his representative (A.V. Kligman), the representatives of
the ORT and NTV television companies (A.B. Orfenov and I.V. Minaev), and
the Secretary of the RF Union of Journalists (I.S. Simanchuk), the Judicial
Chamber has established:
On September 11, the “Vremia” (ORT) program broadcast
information about a fight in the halls of a State Duma session. In its
reference to Nikolai Lysenko as one of the fight participants, the broadcast
did not use his first name. This information in essence disinformed the
television viewers because there are two State Duma deputies named Lysenko–
Nikolai and Vladimir. Print publications also allowed such incomplete information
about V.N. Lysenko. As for the “Segodnia” (NTV) program, a survey of its
videocassettes revealed no incomplete and inaccurate information.
The Judicial Chamber considers that the “Vremia” (ORT)
program contained incomplete information. Such incomplete information can
cause television viewers, radio audiences, and readers to have an inaccurate
impression of which deputy is the topic of discussion. It can cause moral
injury to V.N. Lysenko and to the bloc he heads.
During the consideration of this information dispute,
there were questions raised about the need to observe legal and ethical
norms in mass media references to the surnames of political, state, and
public figures and the impermissibility of using their surnames in a disparaging
fashion.
In light of the foregoing and guided by points 4, 9,
and 10 of the Statute on the Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber
for Information Disputes and article 19 of the RF Civil Code, the Judicial
Chamber has decided:
1. To recognize that the story on the State Duma fight,
broadcast on the September 11, 1995 “Vremia” (ORT) program, presented viewers
with incomplete and inaccurate information, which violated deputy V.N.
Lysenko’s right to his name (article 19 RF Civil Code).
2. To recommend that mass media editorial offices in
their references to people with the same surnames use the full name and
other identifying personal characteristics and that television broadcasts
must include a picture of the person under discussion.
3. To rectify on a “Vremia” program in the near future
the inaccurate information regarding V.N. Lysenko, which has societal significance.
4. To publish this decision in Rossiiskaia gazeta.
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A. B. Vengerov
Published in Rossiiskaia gazeta
September 30, 1995, at 4
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster
2. ON VIOLATIONS IN A.G. NEVZOROV’S JUNE 30, 1995 “WILD FIELD”
PROGRAM OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CONVICTS IMPRISONED IN INSTITUTION
US–20/2, October 19, 1995, No. 32(69)
The Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber
for Information Disputes has received appeals from N.L. Vorontsova and
other women convicts who are currently imprisoned in the general regime
colony US–20/2. They assert that A.G. Nevzorov’s program “Muckraking” of
the “Wild Field” series (June 30, 1995) flagrantly violated the right to
inviolability of private life.
The Judicial Chamber notes that, indeed, articles 23
and 24 of the Russian Constitution provide that everyone has the right
to inviolability of private life and that collection, storage, use and
dissemination of information related to an individual’s private life without
his/her consent are impermissible.
Moreover, according to article 49 part 1 ¶5 of
the Russian Federation Law “On the Mass Media,” a journalist must obtain
the consent of the citizen or his/her legal representative for dissemination
in the mass media of information related to the private life of that citizen.
After examining the statements of N.L. Vorontsova and
other convicts, familiarizing itself with the videotapes of the “Wild Field”
television program (“Muckraking” broadcast), studying other materials,
and hearing the testimony of N.L. Vorontsova, “Russian Public Television”
representative M.M. Martirosova, and RF MVD representative V.I. Orlov,
the Judicial Chamber has established:
A.G. Nevzorov’s broadcast disseminated information about
several aspects of the daily life of convicts imprisoned in the general
regime colony US–20/2 located in the Leningrad oblast’. It devoted special
attention to the distinctive features of the sexual behavior of women prisoners.
It made broad generalizations about the ways of life characteristic, in
the author’s opinion, of every Russian women’s correctional labor institution,
without exception.
In organizing television filming for the “Muckraking”
broadcast (“Wild Field” program), A.G. Nevzorov made a request to film
on a completely different topic. He promised to observe steadfastly the
right of a convict to consent to being filmed and if such consent was refused
to use the technique of anonymous filming– without the individual’s face,
surname and first name.
However, in preparing this television broadcast, he
flagrantly violated these promises. Without their consent, he filmed N.L.
Vorontsova, G. S. Krupskaia, E. Iu. Kupriianova, and other female convicts
who were subjects of the broadcast. In a series of broadcast episodes it
was absolutely clear that those included in the footage did not wish to
be objects of journalistic attention.
The broadcast groundlessly attributed to the entire
population of institution US–20/2 (and also, as the author claimed, all
residents of similar institutions) certain forms of sexual orientation
and modes of behavior.
Close–up shots of women (who ended up in footage purely
at the whim of the journalist) as a backdrop for unambiguous commentary
and frank interviews, as well as the entire context of the broadcast, gave
prisoners grounds to take personally A.G. Nevzorov’s unfounded assertions.
The claimants justly point to the possible adverse consequences
of this broadcast for women with husbands, children, parents, etc. outside
prison. The dissemination of such information weakens moral principles
and has the potential to cause tangible moral injury and destroy family
relations.
The Judicial Chamber has also established that according
to the contract for delivery of the “Wild Field” television program, the
creative enterprise “600 seconds,” headed by A.G. Nevzorov, is answerable
for all complaints by third parties about the program. Yet, as is stipulated
in this very same contract, the concept, theme, and scenario are approved
in advance by appropriate officials of “Russian Public Television.” Moreover,
ORT has the power, with A.G. Nevzorov’s consent, to make necessary editorial
changes in filmed material. In this way, it has control over the program’s
compliance with Russian Federation legislative requirements.
However, in this case, the company’s leadership did
not exercise its rights and did not fulfill the control functions it is
assigned by contractual terms and Russian legislation.
The Judicial Chamber notes that in general the aspiration
of journalists to cover the truly complex and urgent problems related to
confinement of citizens, who are serving a term of imprisonment, deserves
support. What is more, openness of the Russian penitentiary system to the
mass media, and thus, to public opinion, and penitentiary leaders’ support
for this situation are essential conditions to ensure that generally–accepted
principles and norms are observed in the prison system. The right of a
journalist to collect and disseminate information, including information
about the penitentiary system and its actual problems, is recognized and
guaranteed by Russian legislation. However, realization of this right must
not become the grounds and excuse for infringing the constitutional rights
of citizens, including prisoners, to inviolability of private life.
In this regard, the Judicial Chamber considers it also
necessary to note the intolerable inaction by several employees of institution
US–20/1 during A.G. Nevzorov’s illegal filming.
The Judicial Chamber notes that despite repeated invitations,
journalist A.G. Nevzorov without valid reason refused to participate in
the hearing and explain his actions. It regards the fax he sent as an attempt
to replace one question with others and to avoid objective analysis of
his broadcast.
Based on these findings and guided by Articles 4 and
30 of the Statute on the Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber
for Information Disputes, the Judicial Chamber has decided:
1. In light of journalist A.G. Nevzorov’s flagrant
violation of legal and ethical norms in his “Muckraking” broadcast (of
the “Wild Field” series), to recommend that the ORT leadership examine
without fail the question of cancelling its contract for dissemination
of the “Wild Field” program and to send this decision to the ORT leadership.
2. To reprimand journalist A. G. Nevzorov for
his flagrant violation of the constitutional and ethical norms that protect
the inviolability of citizens’ private life.
3. To draw the attention of “Russian Public Television”
General Director S.E. Blagovolin to the need to strengthen control over
television programs’ observance of citizens’ rights and legal interests.
4. To recommend that the Russian Federation Ministry
of Internal Affairs adopt measures to prevent future violations of convicts’
constitutional rights during filmings in prisons.
5. To publish this decision in Rossiiskaia gazeta.
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A. Vengerov
Published in Rossiiskaia gazeta
October 31, 1995, at 6
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster