   
|
|
MORALITY
LAWS
I. Yeltsin
to veto law on moral standards in broadcasting.
President Boris Yeltsin will definitely veto the law
on moral standards for TV passed by the State Duma on
[10th March], a representative of the Kremlin
administration told ITAR-TASS.
“The
president of Russia guards the democratic achievements in
the sphere of the freedom of the press and that law will
be vetoed 100 per cent,” he said adding that, in
Yeltsin’s opinion, the law “ practically
creates a body of censorship.” The law
calls for the creation of the “Supreme Council for
the protection of moral standards on TV and radio.”
“Such
a body will not be created as the talk is about the
introduction of censorship,” the Kremlin official
said. . . . The Kremlin believes that the upper
house of the parliament will vote down the law.
“Anyway,
the negative conclusion about the document has already
been prepared for the head of state,” the Kremlin
official said.
ITAR-TASS news agency
(World Service), Moscow, March 19, 1999
II. TV heads
threaten to dispute media morality law.
Chiefs of Russia’s major television companies have
threatened to go to the Constitutional Court over the law
on moral standards in the media, passed by the State
Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, a few
days ago. Speaking at a news conference in Moscow
on 17th March, the chairman of the All-Russia State TV
and Radio Broadcasting Company, Mikhail Shvydkoy, told
journalists the law was “ flawed” and
“incorrect” from a legal point of view.
The following are excerpts from a report by the Federal
News Service; subheadings added editorially:
[Presenter]
Good afternoon, dear colleagues. We apologize
for the slight delay. We have a very high-powered
panel [on 17th March]. We have with us the heads of
the main Russian TV channels and also some heads of
regional TV companies. The press conference topic
is the adoption by the State Duma of the third and final
reading of the draft law on the supreme council for
protecting morality on television and radio. Let me
introduce the panellists. They are the head of ORT
[Russian Public TV], Shabdurasulov Igor Vladimirovich,
the head of VGTRK [All-Russia State TV and Broadcasting
Radio Company], Shvydkoy Mikhail Yefimovich, the head of
[Moscow-based] TV Centre, Vishnyak Boris Aleksandrovich,
the head of [independent] NTV, Dobrodeyev Oleg
Borisovich, the head of TV-6, Ponomarev Aleksandr
Sergeyevich and our colleagues from Krasnoyarsk,
Protopopov Konstantin Valeriyevich and Nikolayev Gennadiy
Ivanovich. . . .
Media morality law “legally flawed”
[Shvydkoy]
I was not authorized by anyone to speak on behalf of
the community, so I will speak on behalf of myself and my
colleagues in the All-Russia State Television and Radio
Broadcasting Company. We believe that the adoption
of such a draft is at least premature. It is
premature if only for the reason that it introduces the
legally opaque concept of “morality.”
I’d like to stress, colleagues, that this is the
supreme council for protecting morality on television and
radio. The term “morality” is not
juridically correct, if we are talking about the nature
of this law. In this particular case I am almost
ready to agree with members of left-wing majority in the
Duma and say that morality is a social phenomenon and is
determined by political and social views of people. . . .
Therefore,
the area covered by this draft law is very shaky. . .
. So, the All-Russia State Television and Radio
Broadcasting Company believes this draft law is not
correct juridically because its subject is not defined
juridically. . . .
I
think this document is legally flawed. One might
cite the example of France, Britain and other
countries. But I must tell you that in the case of
this draft law the people who cite the examples are those
who have always thought that any Western influences are
terrible. But now that this law is being passed, we
suddenly discover that copying the West is wonderful. . .
.
Charter of broadcasters
[Vishnyak]
What is the purpose of this draft law? That I
cannot understand. But I would like to say another
thing as well. Television and radio broadcasters
have worked a lot on a charter of broadcasters.
Virtually all big broadcasters intend to sign it. I
must remind you that the charter imposed not
restrictions, but a certain framework of ethics and
morality. The charter was not signed purely for
technical reasons. I am confident that it will be
signed. Why was it necessary to adopt this draft
law in these conditions? I see only one reason and
motive—political. This is what I wanted to
say.
Media morality law political
[Dobrodeyev]
So as not to repeat the previous speakers, I will
say that the adoption of the draft law is a key moment in
our present political development. You see, this is
the starting signal of the new election campaign in
Russia. This is the important thing. The
important thing is to get hold of an effective lever to
influence television. . . . The main thing is to create
an effective instrument to influence television on the
eve of autumn and winter. This is the principal
aim. Thank you. . . .
[Shvydkoy]
I would like to add a few words. I think that
our colleagues, journalists, have not studied the law as
well as we did. I would like to draw your attention
to the fact that an absolutely new federal body is to be
set up. It is intended to set up a new federal body
in which every member will be appointed for a period of
six years. Not even ministers and State Duma
deputies get such treatment. Two interesting
details from the point of [view of] literature point to
the quality of this law. I will not discuss the
legal part of the law. We have already dwelt on
this. But I would like to draw your attention to
the following quote from the law: “The powers
of a member of the council shall be terminated ahead of
time on the basis of a decision by the body that
appointed him in the event of the declaration of a member
of the council as being dead by a court of law or the
death of the member of the council. . . .”
[Dobrodeyev]
What is allowed and what is not allowed on
television is something that is quite clearly determined
today. But in my opinion, the people who are
working on television are self-regulating beings and very
reasonable beings. For this reason, when we see
ourselves that some programme or some material clashes
with public notions of morality, we part with it.
There are many examples of this. We stopped most of
the so-called night programmes. We did that long
ago on our own decision. There is no need in
listing these programmes because this is another matter.
[Shabdurasulov]
I second Oleg’s views. In my opinion, the
problem of ethics and morality in the work of journalists
is, first of all, rooted in the self-censorship of the
journalist himself, in his internal perception of things.
. . .
It’s
an opportunity and let me assure you that we will use
it. If the Federation Council or the president of
Russia disagree, for some reason, with our arguments and
the arguments of many others, we will most certainly find
a way, a legally correct one, to do this. We will
most likely go to the Constitutional Court, but since
there is the constitution and there are laws we have to
live by them.
Federal News Service,
Moscow, March 17, 1999
III. Views
on the “Unconstitutional” Morality Law.
Heads of the central television channels have
declared the law “On a Higher Council for the
Defense of Morality in Television Broadcasting and Radio
Broadcasting in the Russian Federation”
unconstitutional.
On
March 17, the Federation Council will discuss the law
“On a Higher Council for the Defense of Morality in
Television Broadcasting and Radio Broadcasting in the
Russian Federation.” The law, prepared by the State
Duma Committee on Culture and representatives of leftist
factions proposes the creation of a federal body—a
Higher Council—empowered to significantly influence
the work of television channels.
For
all intents and purposes, with the appearance of the
Higher Council will come censorship; its twelve members
will be able to punish any TV company they wish.
Nobody doubts that the Council’s punishments will be
subjective. The fact is that no legal, i.e.,
objective, definition of the morality of this or that
program exists.
The
night before the law was to be discussed in the
Federation Council, heads of the main TV channels called
a press conference, at which they expressed their
attitude toward the law. VGTRK Chairman Mikhail
Shvidkoi, ORT General Director Igor Shabdurasulov,
TV-Center General Director Boris Vishnyak, NTV General
Director Oleg Dobrodeev, MNVK General Director Alexander
Ponomarev, and Konstantin Protopopov and Gennady Nikoaev,
representatives of television in Krasnoyarsk, were
unanimous—the law is unconstitutional. It
violates freedom of speech and contradicts the
Constitution and the law “On Mass Media.” Its
passage will bring political censorship. In
practice, the Council will be able to bankrupt
practically any TV company with fines; the maximum fine
could reach 50,000 minimum wages (approx. $200,000).
According
to the participants at the press conference, there are
already enough bodies in Russia that could fulfill the
functions that are to be given to the Higher Council on
Morality. For example, the Judicial Chamber on
Informational Disputes could monitor compliance with
ethical norms.
The
participants in the conference were also upset that in a
difficult economic situation deputies are creating new
positions for officials who will serve the twelve most
moral people in Russia.
The
heads of the TV channels expressed hope that they will be
able to convince the public, the Federation Council, and
the President that this “law is harmful.” If
not, the are prepared to appeal to the Constitutional
Court.
The
Presidential Administration will reject the law
The
President’s position was first announced by his
representative in the State Duma, Alexander Kotenkov,
while the law was still being discussed in its third
reading on March 10. No circumstances or political
moves can change this position.
Denis
Molchanov, head of the Information Department of the
Presidential Administration, told Teleskop that the
impossibility of the signing of the law is not a result
of political disagreements, but of the contradictions
between the law and the Constitution and the law “On
Mass Media.”
There
was no unanimous opinion in discussions of the law in the
Federation Council last night (March 16)
Members
of the Federation Council Committee on Science, the heads
of which will present the law at a plenary session of the
upper house of parliament today (March 17), decided not
to make any predictions regarding the fate of the law.
On
one hand, many governors share the point of view that the
law is unconstitutional. On the other hand, knowing
the President’s firm decision to reject the law, the
Federation Council could pass it to avoid aggravating
relations with the Duma. Members of the upper house
understand perfectly the significance that their
colleagues from the lower house place on the approval of
this law.
Authors
of the law do not want to show their cards, and are
silent about their further moves
Deputies
of the Duma Committee on Culture—the authors of the
law—declined to comment to Teleskop about their
further actions if the law is rejected by the Federation
Council or the President.
A lot
depends on the wording of the reasons for which the law
will be vetoed. It’s possible that a
conciliation commission will be formed that will have to
revise the law, taking into account the interests of the
different sides. However, its work could take a
long time, and the deputies will simply lose time.
Another
possibility is that they will try to modify the law a bit
and pass it quickly. But if they aren’t able
to convince the President and the Federation Council of
the necessity of creating a Higher Council, the law could
meet its destiny today.
In
accordance with the bill passed by the Duma, the Higher
Council would be formed by four sides—the President,
the Duma, the Federation Council, and the Government
(cabinet of ministers). Each of those sides appoint
three members of the Higher Council.
The
Higher Council has the right to undertake serious
measures against those TV companies that, according to
its findings, insult the moral sensibilities of TV
viewers. Among these measures: posing the question
of revocation of a broadcaster’s license; imposition
of a fine of up to 50,000 minimum wages; and initiating
the removal of the top manager of a TV company.
And
it’s possible that the bill the Committee is
currently developing will include the Council’s idea
on the circulation of products of erotic content. . . .
Meanwhile,
the Judicial Chamber on Informational Disputes is
reviewing a claim against VGTRK
Attorneys
are currently examining the question of whether the state
channel violated ethical norms by showing Zalman
King’s film “9 1/2 Weeks.”
VGTRK
Chairman Mikhail Shvidkoi commented on the nascent
investigation as follows: “We were the eigth channel
to show the film, but nevertheless, they wanted to
discuss it with us in the Judicial Chamber on
Informational Disputes. This is normal
practice.”
The
attitude of President Boris Yeltsin toward the law passed
by the Duma on Wednesday is “very negative”
This
was announced by the President’s press secretary,
Dmitry Yakunshin.
In
the President’s opinion, said Yakunshin, the law,
which contradicts the Constitution and other legal norms,
can be seen “as nothing other than an attempt by the
State Duma to limit freedom of speech.”
FSTR
(Federal Service of Television and Radio) head Mikhail
Seslavinsky believes that positive changes have taken
place over the past six months in relation to morality on
television and in radio broadcasting
“Those
tendencies that have appeared on television and radio
over the past half year can be seen largely as positive,
rather than negative,” said Seslavinsky, speaking on
Friday during a government session at the Duma with a
statement “On the level of morality present in the
television programs of Russian TV companies.”
Seslavinsky
emphasized that lately the ratings of Russian films,
which are shown almost daily on TV channels, are
growing. In response to complaints from several
deputies about the “manner of presentation” of
news announcements, the FSTR chairman assured them that
the leadership of the FSTR pays attention to the
intolerability of “common showings of dead bodies
and other crime scenes.”
In
addition, Seslavinsky noted that FSTR leadership is
working “in conditions of a legislative
deficit,” as a law on limited circulation of
productions of a sexual character still has not been
passed. Despite this, erotic programs have been
removed from
ORT and RTR, and on other channels they have been
moved to late time slots after midnight.
Seslavinsky
announced that TV companies are currently creating a
charter for television and radio broadcasters, the
members of which “are willingly prepared to adopt
limits to make the airwaves as clean as possible.”
Seslavinsky
declined to give a direct response to the question as to
whether the FSTR leadership is satisfied with the work of
TV anchor Nikolai Svanidze. He did say, however,
that “the work of anchors on many channels leaves us
wanting something better,” and admitted that he
doesn’t have the ability to “influence the work
of anchors.”
Speaking
about advertising on television, Seslavinsky emphasized
that August 17, 1998 “introduced serious
corrections,” and advertising of domestic producers
is taking up more and more time on TV screens.
According
to President Yeltsin’s representative in the Duma,
Alexander Kotenkov, the law “On a Higher
Council” passed by the Duma is absolutely
unacceptable
Commenting
on the passage of the bill in an interview with
journalists, Kotenkov noted that this document would
create “some kind of unconstitutional non-judicial
body,” which is totally impermissible.
In
addition, Kotenkov admitted that there is a problem with
the moral criteria of some television programs.
According to him, this problem must be solved by
legislatively approved “civilized norms” that
are in effect in many other countries.
Kotenkov
noted that in many countries, there are prohibitions or
limits on the showing of certain programs offensive to
moral sensibilities. But for this, he noted,
it’s necessary to determine precisely what
pornography is, what limits should be introduced on
advertising of alcohol and tobacco products, etc.
In this case, he said, any citizen will have the right to
appeal to a regular court with a claim, and the court
will establish whether legislation was violated by the TV
company. Kostenkov noted that “they’re
trying to resolve this question by ideological means
which existed in the recent past.”
The
leader of the Otechestvo (Fatherland) movement, Moscow
Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, does not support the idea of creating
special councils for defense of morality on television
“I
am categorically opposed to censorship and am in favor of
the full realization of the constitutional right to
freedom of speech in the framework of the law,” said
Luzhkov.
According
to the city head, he is “not ecstatic” about
what is shown on various TV channels. In saying so,
he specifically noted that he was talking not about the
fact that “so-called state television receives
strict instructions not to show Luzhkov.
“The
abundance of specially ordered political material, scenes
of violence and obscenity, indicate an absence among the
heads of several channels of the elementary sense of
civil responsibility and simply taste,” believes
Luzhkov.
He
emphasized that the absence of these feelings “is
not cured by deputies’ commissions that are much
more concerned with political censorship than with
morality.”
Former
vice-premier of the Russian Federation and current leader
of the Rossiya Molodaya (Young Russia) movement Boris
Nemtsov subjected the law on creation of a Higher Council
to criticism
Passage
of this law, according to Nemtsov, attests to communist
aspirations in the run-up to the elections “to
introduce censorship through control over mass
media.”
According
to the former vice-premier, behind the passage of such a
law,”stand political maneuvers aimed at the
establishment of a totalitarian regime in the
country.” “If Lenin with his comrades in arms
was preparing a Bolshevik revolution today, then along
with the telegraph, telephones and post, he’d also
demand to take over television,” remarked Nemtsov.
Nemtsov
said that the communists “already control executive
and legislative power, but they don’t control the
free press, and that’s why the main battle is
unfolding around it.”
Nemtsov
believes that “if the communists are able to take
control over mass media, their victory will be
final,” and that, in his opinion, cannot be allowed
to happen.
As
concerns the problem of morality on television, Nemtsov
noted that there is a law on press by which “it is
fully possible to regulate the relationships with mass
media and crack down on those journalists who have gone
too far in violating the fundamentals of morality.”
Teleskop, March 17,
1999 (translated from the Russian), available at
<http://www.internews.ru/crisis/unconstitutional.html>.
IV. TV
companies slam council for media moral standards.
The State Duma [lower house of parliament] voted for the
establishment of a high council for the protection of
morality in broadcasting in the Russian Federation on
10th March. At a news conference [on 16th March],
the leaders of Russia’s main TV and radio companies
expressed their reaction to the decision.
Here is a report by Marina Tumanova.
[Correspondent]
The new federal body, which the State Duma voted
for, will be given broad powers. Each member of the
high council for the protection of morality in
broadcasting will be appointed for a term of six
years. The heads of Russia’s leading TV
channels, who gathered at a news conference [on 16th],
expressed the hope that neither the Federation Council
[upper house of parliament] nor, moreover, the president
would approve the emergence of a department for
supervising and monitoring TV and radio programmes.
[Mikhail Shvydkoy, chairman of the All-Russia
State TV and Radio Broadcasting Company]
I would say that the concept of morality itself is
legally incorrect. I am not sure, for instance,
that my understanding of morality coincides with that of
Mr [Albert] Makashov [State Duma deputy notorious for his
anti-Semitic statements]. By voting, one cannot
determine what is right and what is wrong.
[Igor Shabdurasulov, director-general of Russian
Public Television]
If such laws are adopted, we will have officials or
various appointed people as guardians of morality who
will dare to dictate to us, TV viewers and radio
listeners, what is ethical and what is not.
[Oleg Dobrodeyev, director-general of the Moscow
NTV company]
At present it is impossible to find in Russia 12
highly ethical politicians or people recommended by
politicians who are capable of becoming supreme judges of
the situation.
Russia TV, Moscow,
March 16, 1999
V. Morality
law could reinstate censorship.
[Anchor]
This week, the State Duma approved the third and
final reading of the Law on a Higher Council for the
Defense of Morality in Television and Radio
Broadcasting. Now, if the Federation Council and
the President approve this document, a new state organ
will control the content of all television and radio
programs. According to many observers, this will
actually mean a reinstatement of censorship.
[Narrator]
This Higher Council for the Defense of Morality is
not planning to deal with the distinction between erotic
and pornographic in programs like these. In fact,
the deputies are proposing to create an organ for state
control over electronic mass media that would have the
right to punish broadcasters on an almost arbitrary
basis. The criteria by which the Council will
evaluate the morality of television and radio programs
are extremely vague, while the sphere of the
Council’s activity is basically unlimited.
[Nikolai Gubenko, KPRF Duma Deputy, Deputy
Chairman of the Duma Committee on Culture]
Definitely, all types of information and all of its
providers, beginning with variety shows and ending with
news programs, especially when election campaigns are in
progress, of course they must have their contents
monitored and controlled.
[Narrator]
Gubenko denies that while pretending to battle for
morality, the Duma majority is simply trying to get its
hands on a new instrument of influence over electronic
mass media. Journalists, however, see the
Duma’s proposal as an attempt to revive political
censorship.
[Vladimir Posner, President of the Academy of
Russian Television]
The desire, most of all of the communists and
leftist factions, to somehow or other control television,
and I emphasize that it’s television in particular,
and particularly at a time when the elections are coming,
is such an obvious thing that it’s even shameful to
talk about it at all.
[Alexei Simonov, President of the Glasnost
Defense Fund]
People who graphically demonstrate every day that
morality is absolutely not their guiding principle, and
that morals aren’t among their inherent qualities,
are creating a supervisory council for the preservation
of morality that will be headed by whom? The best
chairman for such a Duma committee would be Vladimir
Volfovich Zhirinovsky.
[Grigory Simanovich, Head of the ORT Press
Service]
The bill approved by the Duma is absolutely
unrefined and poses great danger that the rights of
television companies, radio companies, and journalists
will be violated—the rights that we have fought so
hard for these past years.
[Narrator]
In the near future, the heads of all the major
television companies will come forward with a joint
appeal to the President and the Federation Council for
them to not allow the law “On A Higher Council for
the Defense of Morality” to be passed. A
similar appeal is currently being prepared by the Russian
Union of Journalists. And the President’s
Press Secretary Dmitry Yakushkin has already announced
that Yeltsin will veto the bill.
Even
the right-wing State Duma Directorate admitted that many
of the law’s resolutions contradict the
Constitution. Therefore, most likely, this latest
legislative attack on free speech will end with this for
the time being. And then, at communist
demonstrations they’ll be able to tell of how the
State Duma wanted to fight for morality, but was again
hindered by evil, anti-Russian forces.
Chetvertaya Vlast
(“Fourth Estate”), March 14, 1999,
available at <http://www.internews.ru/crisis/censorship.html>.
VI. Kremlin
battles Duma over plan for media watchdog.
The Kremlin accused Russia’s lower house of
parliament on [10th March] of trying to limit freedom of
speech after deputies passed a draft law on creating a
television and radio watchdog.
The
law, passed at its final reading in the Duma, allows for
the establishment of a 12-member council to protect moral
standards. Critics say it could be used to put
political pressure on the media.
The
draft law still needs the approval of the Federation
Council, or upper house, and Kremlin aides indicated it
could face a struggle to avoid President Boris
Yeltsin’s veto.
“It
is nothing less than an attempt by the Duma to restrict
the freedom of speech,” Dmitry Yakushkin,
Yeltsin’s press secretary, was quoted as saying by
Interfax news agency.
The
issue is important because the media are expected to play
a key role in the campaigns for a parliamentary election
due at the end of this year and a presidential election
expected in mid-2000.
EJC Media News,
March 12, 1999
VII. Duma
adopts law on moral standards in broadcasting.
The State Duma adopted on [10th March] at its
plenary session after third and final reading the federal
law “ On the Supreme Council for the protection of
moral standards in TV and radio broadcasting in the
Russian Federation.”
The
law confirms that TV and radio broadcasting in Russia is
free, and censorship has been banned by the Russian
constitution. The freedom of TV and radio
broadcasting may be restricted only in the degree in
which it is necessary for protecting the fundamentals of
the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and
lawful interests of individuals, for upholding the
country’s defences and national security.
When
defining the prerogatives of the Supreme Council, the law
says that it has no right to demand from broadcasting
companies and editorial boards of mass media organs that
they coordinate materials with it in advance. The
council will not have the right either to ban the
broadcasting of some reports, programmes or their
fragments. The council will have the right,
however, for the sake of protecting moral standards, to
issue warnings to the broadcasting companies and to use
other authorized measures against them, if they broadcast
TV and radio programmes, or other materials, which either
induce the audience to commit criminal offences, or
create a feeling that one may go unpunished after
committing such offences, or pose a threat to individual
or national security, or if they kindle social, racial,
ethnic or religious hatred or a feeling of superiority,
if they advocate war, cruelty or violence.
The
violation of moral standards will be punished by a fine
ranging from 10 to 500 minimal wages for territorial
broadcasting companies, and from 100 to 5,000 minimal
wages for regional companies. So far as national
broadcasting companies are concerned, their fines will
range from 1,000 to 50,000 minimal wages (at present the
minimal wage amounts to R83.5 [presumably, a week]).
One
of the articles of the law permits the Supreme Council to
give recommendations within the limits of its competence
on the working out of state policy in the sphere of TV
and radio broadcasting at the request of the president,
the chambers of the Federal Assembly, the government, the
Ministry of Justice and courts, and to analyse the
situation with TV and radio broadcasting.
The
Supreme Council will be a permanent state body, made up
of 12 members. Three members of the council will be
appointed by the president, three by the State Duma
[lower house of parliament], three by the Federation
Council [upper house] and three by the government.
Members
of the council will be appointed within two months after
the law comes into force. Now it will be submitted
for the consideration of the Federation Council.
ITAR-TASS news agency
(World Service), Moscow, March 10, 1999
VIII.
Yeltsin’s representative criticizes watchdog.
[On 10th March] the State Duma voted to form special
councils to protect morality on TV and radio. A law
to this effect has been adopted in the third and final
reading. Our correspondent Dmitriy Kochetkov
has been following events at the lower house of
parliament.
[Correspondent]
The deputies hope to influence the activities of TV
and radio companies. [On 10th March,] they adopted
a law which sets up a new watchdog, the Supreme Council
for the Protection of Moral Standards. The authors
of the law are giving assurances that this does not mean
the introduction of censorship. The
parliamentarians intend that the Supreme Council should
consist of representatives of the president, the
government and both houses of parliament. Producers
of immoral TV and radio programmes will be
punished. First they will be warned, but if that
has no effect, they will be fined and prosecuted.
[Deputy chairman of the State Duma’s
Committee on Culture, Nikolay Gubenko—captioned]
TV and radio broadcasts mould the spirit. If
they distort reality or deceive us, they make it
impossible to achieve mutual understanding in society and
break up all the mainstays of the state system.
[Correspondent]
It is not yet clear what criteria the Supreme
Council will use to distinguish moral programmes from
immoral ones. Representatives of the president say
the new body is not needed at all.
[Russian president’s representative at the
State Duma, Aleksandr Kotenkov—captioned]
The law is extremely harmful because it creates a
new body outside the constitutional and judicial system.
Russian Public TV,
Moscow, March 10, 1999
IX.
Journalists oppose Duma “morality” regulation
bid.
The Russian Union of Journalists has issued an open
letter protesting the Duma’s passage of a law
establishing a council to regulate morality in TV and
radio broadcasting. Calling the legislation
“Orwellian,” the Union called on Duma deputies
to revoke the law and to focus their energy instead on
refining the country’s broadcast licensing system.
The
text of the letter follows:
Statement of the Russian Union of Journalists
By a
majority of votes, the State Duma has passed the Law
“On a Higher Council for Defence of Morality in
Television and Radio Broadcasting in the Russian
Federation” in the second reading.
We
fully support the idea of the defence of morality in
Russia, but are convinced that this law is not in any way
related to the problem and is in some way a senseless,
and in some way a harmful creation of the
legislators. It is foolish and harmful to separate
morality in any sphere from its professional basis.
If we are to follow this path, we should also create
Higher Councils on morality in economics, in politics, in
agriculture, and in all other spheres, where
professionals will be guided by “professional”
moralists.
One
of the main reasons that what is happening on TV screens
offends the morality of our fellow citizens is the
absence in Russia of a law on television. The
deputies of the State Duma are to blame for this.
And instead of finally passing a law on television and
radio, the State Duma is attempting to create a fantastic
body with a name reminiscent of the Orwellian Ministry of
Love and Truth.
All
civilized countries long ago developed a mechanism that,
without resorting to censorship, allows them to rein in
anarchy on the air. The mechanism is licensing
policy. The state, being the owner of radio and
television broadcast frequencies, has all the necessary
tools to prevent abuse of free speech in electronic mass
media. But for this to happen, a completely
different law is needed than that which the State Duma
has passed.
We
call upon the deputies of the State Duma to withdraw this
law from consideration and respond with legislative work
to the key question facing Russian television and
radio: How and by whom are television and radio
broadcast licences issued and controlled in our country?
[Signed]
Chairman of the Russian Union of Journalists V.L.
Bogdanov
General Secretary I. A. Yakovenko
Secretary M. A. Fedotov
Internews Russia press release, Moscow, February 24, 1999
|
