Do we need free media? if yes, then why; if not, what should it be limited to? Should there be complete media freedom?

Should there be complete media freedom? If yes, then why; if not, what should it be limited to?

Personally, I don’t observe freedom of speech in the media. This is a chimera, and it is not only practically unrealizable, but ideally it (freedom of speech) is also difficult to imagine.
I'll try to explain.
The media, more precisely “propaganda” (there is such a definition), initially, at the time of its creation, are already dependent, biased and not free. What they are not free from does not change the essence of lack of freedom. The subsequent possible logical conclusions become quite obvious.
As soon as more freedom appears somewhere, it immediately becomes less in another place.
Therefore, the most preferable is to search for information in different, preferably opposing sources, its analysis, synthesis and, as a result, the individual’s opinion on a specific issue. Own opinion. Otherwise, there is nothing left to do but admit that you are a brainless “people” and continue to “eat” the hay that a caring shepherd puts in your manger.
But what about morality, ethics and other regulators? No way. You cannot become moral and ethical by order, coercion or by following laws. These categories are brought up and acquired gradually, in the family, communication with native speakers, reading smart and good books, and are formalized in the form of life experience.
I won’t say about myself that I’m just that “moral and ethical,” but for me it makes no difference whose feelings are offended, believers or atheists. At such moments, I am more interested in the question “Who benefits from this?”, and not “Where did the border of freedom of speech go, because just yesterday it passed right here? Was it not completely abolished?”
But if you answer in a nutshell, then: “No, it shouldn’t. Because there is no freedom of speech! And in the media, in particular.”

Which of these statements do you think is correct and why? “the basic principle of a rule-of-law state is that state power in it is limited. In a rule-of-law state, power is subject to certain limits, which it cannot and should not transgress. The limited power in a rule-of-law state is created by the recognition of inalienable and inviolable rights for an individual” “if the state the government will be weak, then who will really protect a person from rampant crime, help him realize his rights in the fight against the powers that be: large farms, bribery officials. " Tags:

Statement No. 1. I think it is correct.

After all, as a rule, a rule-of-law state is a state where freedoms and human rights are respected (this is also the highest value of the constitution), therefore the government that is at the head of this state must obey these rules. State power is limited, that's true. Most often, in a rule of law state, a democratic regime prevails, which means that the people take a significant part in deciding the future of their country.

Compare 2 statements: “The basic principle of a legal or constitutional state is that state power in it is limited. In a rule-of-law state, power is subject to certain limits, which it cannot and should not cross. The limited power in a rule-of-law state is created by the recognition of the individual’s inherent and inviolable rights."
2nd "If state power is weak, then who will really protect a person from rampant crime, help him realize his rights in the fight against the powers that be: big bosses, bribe-taking officials."

Which of these statements do you think is correct and why?

The first statement is absolutely true. Because a legal state is the same as a democratic state, that is, from the word “right” And it is limited, from lawlessness and negligence

Secondly, there are 2 options: when owls. without the UN, the fate of this country (what to do with it, etc.) will be decided by either the judiciary

Help me please!
Read the text and complete tasks C1–C4.
The separation of powers presupposes the organizational independence of the three branches of government - legislative, executive, judicial - and the delimitation of functions between them. Historical experience shows that if all power is concentrated in one body or one person, then the emergence of tyranny is inevitable. To prevent this from happening, power must be divided among the various organs of the state in such a way that they mutually control and restrain each other. As a result, none of the branches of government can subjugate the others. They are forced to comply with the rules of interaction established by law. As a result, the law, not the official, rules.
Back in 1748, C. Montesquieu formulated this principle. “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or in the same body of magistracy, then freedom cannot be achieved, since there may be fear that the same monarch or senate will be able to introduce tyrannical laws and use them in a tyrannical manner. At the same time, there can be no freedom if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive. If it is combined with the legislative, the life and freedom of the subject will be subject to arbitrary control, the judge then turns into a legislator. If it is united with the executive power, the judge can act with all the bitterness of the oppressor.”
Separation of powers is not just “separation of government agencies.” It must be accompanied by a system of mutual checks and balances.
(A.P. Gerasimov, text adapted)
C1 Make a plan for the text. To do this, highlight the main semantic fragments of the text and title each of them.
C2 What principle of organization of government power is described in the text? Name two characteristics that reveal the essence of this principle.
C3. What does the author see as the danger of connecting individual branches of government with each other? Name the condition due to which, according to the author, “neither branch of government can subjugate the other.”
C4 Based on your knowledge of the social science course, name the highest government bodies of the Russian Federation and indicate which branch of government each of them belongs to.

1) 1. The essence of separation of powers
2. (historical) reason for the emergence of the separation of powers
3. The position of philosophers
3) danger in the emergence of tyranny; various bodies of the state have their share of power (or as in the text: power should be divided between various bodies of the state)
4) legislative-parliament, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, executive-government of the Russian Federation, judicial-constitutional court of the Russian Federation, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.

1. Are the judgments about human freedom correct?
A. one of the manifestations of human freedom is the ability to act in accordance with one’s desires and aspirations.
B. human freedom in society is limited by the interests of other people, society as a whole.
1) only A is correct
2) only B is correct
3) both judgments are correct
4) both judgments are incorrect
2. Find early forms of religious beliefs in the list provided. Write down the numbers under which they are indicated.
1) Totemism 2) totemism, 3) fetishism 4) Judaism 5) animism 6) polytheism
3. Are the following judgments about political parties true?
A. Cadre parties represent moderate, liberal or conservative forces; they are numerous, have small financial resources, and achieve success in elections as a result of the active work of their members.
B. Mass parties rely on significant financial resources, competent management and access to the media; they can become more active only during election campaigns.
1) only A is true 3) both judgments are true
2) only B is true 4) both judgments are incorrect.
4. Sociologists from the country of N. studied the opinions of newlyweds about the expected desired number of children in their families. The following statistics were obtained: 77% of young families are focused on having one or two children. Every tenth family is not morally ready to fulfill its reproductive function. Only 13% of young spouses plan to have three or more children.
Using the research data, draw conclusions about the main trends in family development in country N. Using social science knowledge and life experience, make three assumptions about the reasons for this situation.
5. What is the reason for refusal to register a political party in the conditions of the modern Russian state?
1) this party represents the interests of the minority
2) this is a party of a religious nature
3) the party seeks to come to power by winning elections
4) the party developed its own reform program.
6. You are instructed to prepare a detailed answer on the topic “Freedom and Responsibility.” Make a plan according to which you will cover this topic. The plan must contain at least three points, of which two or more are detailed in sub-points.
7. Name three trends in the development of the family in modern society and comment on each of them.
8. Reveal the meaning of the statement:
“Where great sages have power, their subjects do not notice their existence.”

1. Both are correct.
2, 1/2/3/5/6 (not sure)
3, both are incorrect (not 100% sure)
4, 90% of families are ready to have a child, which indicates their confidence in the stability of their situation and the state, but since 10% are not ready, the state has room to grow.
5, second option
6, 1. Terminology
a) definition of "freedom"
b) definition of "responsibility"
2, their ratio
a) in the law
b) in morality
3. The opinion of some famous person
4. Conclusion
7, no idea
8, in such a situation the laws are as natural as possible, and the person does not notice them (perhaps so)

Fifteen-year-old Olga once told her parents: “You are obliged to provide me with a decent life. I must, like Svetlana (her best friend), study with tutors, attend expensive English courses, go on vacation abroad....”
The parents tried to explain to their daughter that they did not have the same funds as Svetlana’s father, the director of one of the largest Russian banks. In response, Olga cited Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which refers to the recognition of the child’s right to a standard of living necessary for his physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. The Convention entrusts the solution of this task primarily to parents. “Why don’t you solve it?” - she asked offendedly and left the room.
Express your opinion whether Olga is right. Explain your answer. If you were Olga's parents, what would your daughter say? What would you do in this situation? Why?

If I were Olga’s parent, I would not object to her, but I would say: Olenka, of course, my mother and I want to give you the most tender things, but understand, we don’t have the funds for these things. I would slowly start collecting money for a private school and giving inexpensive gifts. Because she really deserves the best, but she should also be able to put herself in her parents’ shoes.

1. Which of the following is regulated by civil law: jaywalking; returning a purchased item of poor quality to the store; a complaint to court against the author of an article in which the honor and dignity of a person is affected; dismissal from work; property division; subscription to collected works; taxi ride? 2. Explain why a person’s legal capacity can only be limited by a court. Is this fair? 3. In which of the following cases is legal capacity required, and in which is legal capacity sufficient: to have your own home; buy a TV; to rent an apartment; receive property by inheritance; lend a car for use?

Subscription to collected works; taxi ride,
1. Civil law regulates the return of a purchased low-quality item to a store, a complaint to the court for the protection of honor and dignity, dismissal from work, and division of property. 2. Human capacity is the ability to acquire and exercise civil rights through one’s actions, create civil responsibilities and fulfill them. Thus, it is fair that legal capacity can only be limited by a court. Otherwise, it violates human rights. 3. Legal capacity: have your own house, buy a TV, rent an apartment, give a car for use.

Consciousness of law develops consciousness of duty. The universal law is freedom, ending where the unfreedom of another begins." - V. HUGO- Complete the task: 1. How do you understand the meaning of this statement. 2. Give several examples confirming this statement. 3. Do you agree with this statement, give two or three arguments in defense of your opinion!

1) The law can give freedom only until the rights and freedoms of another citizen are violated. Restricting the freedom of another is illegal. In any (where there is no legalized slavery) democrat. state-ve. The basis for this statement in the Russian Federation is now Art. 17, part 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. (The exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms must not violate the rights and freedoms of others.)

2) Example: I cannot violate Art. 21 of the same Constitution (No one should be subjected to torture, violence, other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one can be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without voluntary consent) - choose any (there are also articles in the section Const. "Rights and Freedoms"), despite my desire to do so. Since this limits the rights and freedom of another citizen.

3) We agree. In a democracy! A state restricting the freedom of another citizen entails punishment in accordance with the letter of the law.

A universal law cannot infringe on anyone, so it limits citizens.

Russian philosopher Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin (1882-1954) about the totalitarian regime.
What is a totalitarian regime?

This is a political system that has infinitely expanded its intervention in the lives of citizens, including all their activities within the scope of its management and compulsory regulation. The word “totus” means “whole” or “whole” in Latin. A totalitarian state is an all-embracing state. It stems from the fact that the initiative of citizens is unnecessary and harmful, and the freedom of citizens is dangerous and intolerant. There is a single center of power: it is called upon to know everything, to foresee everything, to plan everything, to prescribe everything. Ordinary legal consciousness proceeds from the premise: everything that is not prohibited is permitted; The totalitarian regime inspires something completely different: everything that is not prescribed is prohibited. An ordinary state says: you have a sphere of private interest, you are free in it; a totalitarian state declares: there is only state interest, and you are bound by it. An ordinary state allows: think for yourself, believe freely, build your inner life as you want; a totalitarian state demands: think what is prescribed, do not believe at all, build your inner life according to the decree. In other words: here management is comprehensive; man is completely enslaved; freedom becomes criminal and punishable.

1. Based on the text and material of the paragraph, think from the standpoint of what scientific approach - political science or legal science - is the political regime considered in the document? Explain your answer.

2. How is power organized under a totalitarian regime?

3. What are the ways and means of its implementation? Give reasons for your answer.

4. Based on the characteristics of the concept of “political regime”, knowledge about the totalitarian regime, supplement its characteristics given in the document.

1) from the side of the politician, because there is reflection that does not affect legal aspects.
2) at the head of the state there is one person who runs everything. Tyrant therefore)

3) carried out with the help of state enforcement agencies (police, militia, prosecutor's office) and a system of punishments and fines for failure to comply with instructions.

4) as mentioned above, there is one person in power. The state system is well developed. coercion and punishment system. Such a state is usually well developed economically, but they do not remember the freedoms and rights of citizens. Freedom of speech and religion is prohibited. In foreign policy, such a country most often behaves aggressively towards other states.
Something like this)

Nowadays, a serious business person, in addition to good manners, must have an understanding of the rules of conduct and norms. established moral standards are the result of a long-term process of establishing relationships between people. Without observing these norms, political and cultural relations are impossible, because you cannot exist without respecting each other, without imposing certain restrictions on yourself. In addition, our lives are changing dynamically, especially recently, and the rules of etiquette are changing. Modern life, giving rise to new communication situations, introduces new etiquette requirements. and remembering them all is almost impossible. life is more complex than rules, and in it there are situations that cannot be provided for even by the most complete set of rules of etiquette. This means that today it is more important not just to memorize the rules themselves, but to understand the “spirit”, the essence and meaning of etiquette, i.e. ultimately grasp the basic principles. and several such principles can be identified. First of all, this is the principle of humanism, humanity, which is embodied in a number of moral requirements addressed directly to the culture of relationships. These are politeness, tact, modesty and accuracy. The second most important principle of modern etiquette is the principle of expediency of actions. Thus, knowledge, skill and habits are the three “steps of etiquette” that must be overcome in order to become a well-mannered person, distinguished by “ natural cultural behavior.

answer: yes, I agree. since modern people determine the quality of a product by price. It should be added that the better the quality of the product, the higher the price. You can take the example of phones, compare a push-button phone and an iPhone.

Personally, I’m not into freedom of speech in the media. this is a chimera, and it is not only practically unrealizable, but ideally it (freedom of speech) is also difficult to imagine.

I'll try to explain.

The media, more precisely “propaganda” (there is such a definition), initially, at the time of its creation, are already dependent, biased and not free. what they are not free from does not change the essence of lack of freedom. subsequent possible logical conclusions become quite obvious.

As soon as more freedom appears somewhere, it immediately becomes less in another place.

therefore, the most preferable is to search for information in different, preferably opposing sources, its analysis, synthesis and, as a result, the individual’s opinion on a specific issue. own opinion. Otherwise, there is nothing left to do but admit that you are a brainless “people” and continue to “eat” the hay that a caring shepherd puts in your manger.

But what about morality, ethics and other regulators? no way. You cannot become moral and moral by order, coercion or by following laws. these categories are brought up and acquired gradually, in the family, communication with native speakers, reading smart and good books, and are formalized in the form of life experience.

I won’t say about myself that I’m just that “moral and moral,” but for me it makes no difference whose feelings are offended, believers or atheists. At such moments, I am more interested in the question “who benefits from this?”, and not “where did the border of freedom of speech go, because just yesterday it passed right here? Was it not completely abolished?”

but if you answer in a nutshell, then: “no, it shouldn’t. because there is no freedom of speech! and in the media, in particular.”

The situation with the Russian media, despite numerous and very fiery discussions on this matter, is quite simple and definite. If we put aside emotions, the situation of the media in Russia is quite consistent with the general state of the Russian economy, politics and public opinion, being together with them in a drift from the anarchic-romantic past of the last years of perestroika and the first years of democracy through the current intermediate phase, which will be discussed specifically, to a future whose scenario in relation to the media is no less predetermined than the development scenario of Russia itself.

First of all, let us clarify one of the key concepts - in this text we are talking about freedom of the press (freedom to present various facts and opinions in the media), and not about freedom of speech. These are different concepts (freedom of speech is obviously and certainly broader than freedom of the press), including the subject of possessing one and the other freedom. Freedom of speech concerns all citizens and non-citizens of the country, freedom of the press - primarily journalists (professional and, as a rule, hired media workers) and a rather narrow stratum of public and famous people.

It should also be noted that many, if not all, problems associated with press freedom throughout the world, but especially in Russia, are extremely mythologized. In this regard, I am forced to preface the specific description of the state and prospects of press freedom in Russia with some theoretical and semi-theoretical considerations - absolutely necessary in this topic.

Myths and reality

“I do not agree with your opinion, but I am ready to give my life so that you can express it freely,” this aphorism of Voltaire, which people like to refer to inappropriately and inappropriately, is, of course, maximalist, that is, it proclaims an ideal and not the norm and certainly not reality.

History does not know a single example of when someone went to death for freedom of speech, especially for someone else’s. Voltaire himself did not do this. People consciously go to death for their family, their homeland, their religion or ideology, and finally - for their freedom or for their honor. Freedom of speech itself is not a value as absolute and all-encompassing as the five listed.

Calling a friend, editor-in-chief or famous journalist and asking him for something is the norm in Russia. It is indecent to refuse such a request: to refuse a friend a friendly request. This is how the Russian political class functions out of habit.

“Freedom of the press in a bourgeois society is the dependence of the writer (journalist) on the money bag,” and this is the statement of Vladimir Lenin. It is also, to a certain extent, but not to the same extent as Voltaire’s, maximalist. For at a certain stage of their development, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, of course, are included in the system of basic values of market democracy (a system that, in general, exists today in Russia).

“Freedom of speech is the conscious need for money,” this somewhat cynical apocryphal aphorism is attributed to the Soviet writer Yuri Nagibin, who was distinguished by a fair love of freedom and free-thinking, but was quite successful both in his creativity and, by the way, in earning this very money. Nagibin’s aphorism is not dogmatic, but, of course, it is a real guide to action for many who write (and now film).

In the life of modern Russian society and modern Russian journalism, freedom of speech, on the one hand, certainly exists, and on the other, as a reality (and not a myth) can most accurately be described only by summing up Voltaire’s, Lenin’s and Nagibin’s definitions.

Freedom of speech (both in ideal declaration and in actual functioning) is one of the cornerstones of the modern market democratic political system, but not the highest value of this system itself (its highest values are survival, or self-preservation, and expansion), much less life at all. Freedom of speech, neither as an ideal nor as a reality, is higher even than, for example, freedom of property or freedom of competition.

Meanwhile, as is well known, restrictions on freedom of speech in Western democracies are found everywhere, although most often these restrictions are carried out either by politically correct, or behind-the-scenes, or psychological methods, and in any case never directly on behalf of the state (authority), with the exception of such its bodies, such as intelligence services, and with the exception of such periods as participation in hostilities.

The pragmatism of market democracy (and its high competitiveness resulting from this pragmatism) leads to the fact that human instincts within this democracy are not suppressed, but used for the benefit of preserving democracy itself as a form of existence of society and the state.

You can't just ban it. But you can prohibit expressing certain thoughts in public. Religious states, as well as totalitarian states, introduce a direct system of prohibitions. Democratic - indirect. For example, as is customary in any society, by a system of moral prohibitions, certain social and political taboos, as well as by fostering social conformity.

Violation of these prohibitions is not a crime, but it can and does create many serious, sometimes downright tragic, problems for the violator. The law, however, is pure, the authorities have nothing to do with it, and the “sacred cow” of freedom of speech remains inviolable.

In democratic societies, freedom of speech exists not because it is the highest value, but because without it it is impossible to ensure the survival and expansion of this society. It is easier for the state to control a freely expressed thought than an unexpressed thought.

Finally, and in a practical sense this is perhaps the most important thing, Western political democracy is built on the principle of limiting some power institutions by others. The interaction of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities turned out to be insufficient to maintain the balance of power in this system.

Neither the democratic system itself, nor its judicial branch, nor religion, which is clearly dying out as a universal moral institution, can control bureaucracy, money and social vices. This can be done either by the total power of the state (which would destroy democracy itself), or by the total power of society, that is, citizens.

Freedom of speech is an institution of the total power of society over the state itself, bureaucracy, money and social vices. The Russian authorities still do not understand this, exposing themselves to the blow of Western public opinion.

It is worth noting that political, social and state loyalty is instilled in Western journalists to such an extent that only a few of them - and even very rarely - strive to tell the world about the genuine, really significant secrets of their own country.

In Russia, in some journalistic, political (which is generally strange) and human rights circles, there is an opinion that the exclusively evil will and undemocraticism of the Russian government, military and intelligence services lead to constant violation of the principles of freedom of speech and press during military operations, counter-terrorism operations (including and for the release of hostages), in general emergency situations. It would be ridiculous to say that our government is the most democratic, and the military and intelligence services are the most open.

But it is also stupid not to understand that any military action is always and everywhere (not only in Russia) accompanied and cannot but be accompanied by the violation of entire groups of rights and freedoms, which in normal circumstances are worse or better, but are respected in one country or another.

The laws of war (and similar events) in principle do not provide for the existence of many freedoms and rights usual for peaceful life. This is the main and most fundamental reason for the collapse of the institution of freedom of speech and freedom of the press during the war.

The second reason: freedom of speech and freedom of the press (and some other freedoms) interfere with achieving the main goal of the war, that is, victory over the enemy, the enemy. War involves deception (attacking where the enemy is not waiting), disinformation (inspiring the enemy with the exact opposite of what you are going to do), extensive intelligence activities (that is, stealing other people's secrets), and finally - killing other people and hiding the truth about your own losses for the sake of maintaining morale and the ability to resist among one’s army and one’s population.

How does freedom of speech and press fit into all of this? Is it only as a crime against one’s own army and one’s own country!

Finally, the third reason. Wars (as well as all kinds of special operations) are waged by specially (by law) organized groups of people (army, police, special services), for whom the law has replaced democratic forms of organization with hierarchical-authoritarian ones. Non-democratic structures cannot operate democratically.

In general, it should be noted that both the authorities and society in Russia are extremely sensitive to what is the reverse (some consider the shadow) side of freedom of the press, but they have little faith in the front side of this freedom (and many other freedoms). And we must admit that the persecutors and detractors of press freedom in Russia have something to rely on, both theoretically and practically (both in the West and in their own experience).

Democracy is built in such a way that the people elect the government, but it is governed by it within the time frame determined by the date of the next elections. To a large extent, precisely so that with the help of the press coups d'etat do not occur every day, or, at least, so that the rulers elected by the people do not lose freedom of action, naturally (which does not exclude perversions and abuses in this area) the political system and civil society reached an unspoken consensus on two things:

1) the government can ignore the opinion of the press;

2) the government can (within the framework of so-called democratic procedures, political correctness, common sense and respect for the highest national interests) influence the press and even control society through the media (including through the so-called free media).

Freedom of speech and press, pluralism of opinions and publicized points of view lead to the fact that, due to a number of circumstances (including fashion), often quite artificial, exotic, marginal, extreme and disintegrative opinions are heard most loudly. Public attention is focused around them, which greatly enhances the effect of such opinions on current politics and the life of society as a whole. Freedom of the press and pluralism of opinions can thus lead to the collapse of society or the state, which, by the way, we clearly observed in the history of the collapse of the USSR from 1987 to 1991. The Russian authorities have learned this lesson very well. And she tried to gradually, very imperceptibly, but nevertheless clearly strengthen the integration function of the media. Moreover, in its extreme manifestations, this even led to the nationalization (direct or indirect) of a number of key media (primarily television) or the introduction of elements of censorship - for example, during the state’s military operations in Chechnya.

In 1996, the Russian authorities and (this must be emphasized) the largest business groups, later called oligarchic, jointly used the media, primarily television, to deliberately manipulate voter behavior - and achieved tangible success. From then on, neither the authorities nor the oligarchs let go of this weapon from their hands.

I would like to draw special attention to the fact that both the authorities of that period and the oligarchs called themselves adherents of democracy and liberalism, considered themselves as such, and under this brand were supported by the governments of all democratic states of the West.

The blow to full freedom of the press in Russia was dealt precisely then - not by communists, not by security officers, not by security forces, but by Western and Russian liberals. This is a historical fact.

The split in the Russian elites, who were at war with each other not for democracy, but for property and power, which caused the information wars of 1997-1999, finally turned the Russian media, again primarily television, into a political weapon, and not into an instrument of freedom of speech and freedom print.

After the life-and-death war of the two main political parties in Russia in 1999 - the ORT party and the NTV party, it became absolutely clear to those who, as a result of this war, found themselves in power (in the Kremlin) that national television channels in Russia are political nuclear weapons. Completely undemocratic, just as it was undemocratic that the five great powers - permanent members of the UN Security Council retained a monopoly on the possession of physical nuclear weapons, the central government of Russia decided to maintain control over political nuclear weapons at home.

This is not an excuse. This is the explanation.

Gusinsky and Berezovsky, who did not want to give up their political nuclear potentials, were declared rogue oligarchs, and therefore disarmed and expelled from the country. Only a little later, the great democratic United States of America began to do the same with rogue countries that have claims to possess nuclear weapons. It’s just that the sphere of action of the Washington White House extended to the whole world, and the Moscow Kremlin - only to Russia.

Freedom of the press: for society or for journalists?

Society recognizes journalists' right to speak on society's behalf, including to criticize the government. This, by the way, is the only fundamental right given by society to journalists, because the people themselves can directly and really criticize the government only during elections (by voting for some and not voting for others), that is, once every few years. Journalists are given this right for everyday use.

But if citizens elect members of parliament (and even then they abuse their mandate), then people come to journalism on their own. No one can say, even formally: 1) to what extent the interests of different strata of society are represented in the media, especially national ones; 2) to what extent the opinions of journalists are a reflection of the opinions present in society, and not the opinions of the journalistic corporation itself (just one of many) corporations; 3) how strongly and often journalists abuse their virtually lifelong right to speak on behalf of society. After all, in journalism there is not even a mandatory turnover or rotation of personnel, as in the highest echelons of power. In this, by the way, it most closely resembles another powerful professional corporation associated with power - the bureaucracy.

Firstly, freedom of the press is essentially the freedom of speech of journalists, and not of all citizens of a given society; secondly, freedom of the press in a certain sense is a restriction of the freedom of speech of all other citizens of a given society; and therefore, thirdly, even where, as, for example, in the United States, thanks to the First Amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press is maximally protected by law, mechanisms to counter the use of freedom of the press by journalists to the detriment of the interests of society and its individual citizens are preserved both legally and illegally or even state power itself.

Is the American press free? Free. Moreover, in the United States there are virtually no state-owned media, like in Russia. Nevertheless, for several months preceding the start of the US military attack on Iraq (2003), most American newspapers, weeklies, and television channels talked every day about the horrors (real and imaginary) of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was a well-organized campaign on a national and global scale that had two goals. Firstly, the psychological preparation of the US population for the outbreak of hostilities and the creation of conditions for the approval of these actions. Secondly, moral and psychological suppression of the enemy’s will to resist. The second can directly be characterized as the first part of a military operation, that is, military activity itself.

But is the US media subordinate to the Pentagon or the CIA? Were US journalists drafted into the armed forces of this country? Are most of them secretly collaborating with American intelligence services? There can only be one answer to all these questions: no.

Nevertheless, the pluralistic, free, and owned not by the state but by numerous private owners, the American press acted as a single unit of the US armed forces. It is a fact.

In all modern democratic societies, mechanisms for mobilizing the free press effectively operate to fulfill the tasks that the official government sets for the country (nation), including the tasks of the military.

Scope of press freedom in Russia

Freedom of speech not only exists in Russia today. As in all societies at the stage of anarcho-democracy, it is essentially absolute. This does not mean that there are no problems with freedom of speech and threats to it in Russia.

These problems and threats are related to three factors:

1) the inability and unwillingness of the state, which has declared itself democratic, to act in accordance with democratic norms and rules in this area;

2) irresponsible use of freedom of speech by journalists, which causes a response, often inadequate reaction from the state;

3) the ongoing cold civil war within Russian society, its instability, when the task of political and sometimes physical survival of individuals, groups and the government itself or even the country forces them to violate any laws, including laws protecting freedom of speech.

Once again I will return to the common term - “freedom of speech”. For a serious, and not superficial or opportunistic analysis of this problem, it is necessary to distinguish at least five terms and, accordingly, five social values and social institutions built on the basis of them: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, censorship, freedom of specific media, freedom of the media.

Freedom of speech in Russia today is real and absolute. And even with less responsibility for one’s words than in the West.

Freedom of the press is enshrined in law, but is embodied in society as a whole as a set of texts and images in all Russian media, and not in each one individually. In principle this is an acceptable standard.

Censorship is prohibited by law; in fact, it is absent in the practice of all media, except for corporate censorship, which legally, however, also does not exist. Separately, I would point out the following factors as significant in Russia today: self-censorship of journalists themselves, associated with their political preferences (this is especially evident along the divide “communists - anti-communists”, and on both sides), and, as I call it, censorship of friends - very effective. Calling a friend, editor-in-chief or famous journalist and asking him for something is the norm in Russia. It is very difficult to refuse such a request. But not because it’s scary, but because it’s indecent: it’s indecent to refuse a friend’s friendly request. This is how the Russian political class functions out of habit.

Freedom of specific media varies, as is always the case. It is limited both in too many state media (including media owned or controlled by regional and local authorities), and, naturally, in private ones - at least by the interests of their owners, who are often also dependent on the state, as well as by the interests of the main management and self-censorship ( voluntary or selfish) editors-in-chief or journalists themselves.

Freedom of the media in Russia is not fully present - primarily due to numerous taboos tacitly imposed on certain topics by both the state and private media owners and groups close to them in business or political interests.

Characterizing the situation as a whole, I can say with full responsibility that individual restrictions on all these freedoms and, on the contrary, individual elements of unofficial censorship are more than offset by the peculiarities of the functioning of the already free, but not yet fully responsible Russian press in a society with a weak government, warring with each other by elites (information wars, in which a lot of lies are used, also produce huge emissions of the most extreme truth) and general anarchy.

Finally, there is the “money problem.”

A poor society, although always better than a rich one in some ways, also suffers from many additional vices, which are minimized in rich countries.

90 percent of Russian journalists (especially outside Moscow) earn very little officially. Very small amounts can ensure both the emergence of information that expands the field of press freedom, and, on the contrary, the concealment of information, which naturally narrows this field.

And the second in the same direction. Poor audiences are less demanding of the work of journalists and are unable to financially maintain the necessary tone of competition. The Soviet times, when one family subscribed to five or six newspapers and two or three more magazines, are long gone.

Freedom of the press in Russia exists for those journalists who are capable and have the opportunity to work within its framework, and freedom of the media - for those who have the opportunity to follow the programs of all major television channels and regularly read six or seven newspapers and two or three weeklies of various political directions.

Russia is not an exception, but a newcomer

Now it would be useful to list the numerous legal exceptions from the principle of freedom of the press that actually exist in almost all democratic countries (in a more or less strict legal form).

1) As a rule, in constitutions or laws specifically dedicated to the media, the following are prohibited (that is, censored): calls for the overthrow of the existing system; calls for war (meanwhile, wars are being waged, and where, if not with the call of the relevant statesman, do they begin?); calls to incite ethnic, racial and religious hatred;

2) In addition, everywhere in the legislation there is the concept of state and/or military secrets, under the sauce of which entire layers of information are censored;

3) The activities of some intelligence services in all large democratic states are actually (in some of their aspects) generally legally removed from the control of the media;

4) Libel is almost universally punishable in court, the definition of which often simply includes undocumented truth;

5) In many countries, various types of public insults of individuals are also punishable by court;

6) Corporate secrets are protected by law;

7) The privacy of personal life is protected by law.

How much information important to society is thus removed from the control of freedom of the press (media control)? Nobody can say for sure. But it is clear that this is not 1-2 percent.

Finally, recently, non-statutory but real restrictions on freedom of the press based on the principle of so-called political correctness have become particularly widespread - restrictions that are often quite absurd. In Russia, for example, this manifested itself in senseless arguments that it was shameful to use the expression “person of Caucasian nationality.” Moreover, none of the fighters against this expression explained how, for example, to indicate in the same police reports the main features of detainees if they do not have documents and they do not give their names? And the fighters for “political correctness” themselves are unlikely to always immediately determine which of the five people of different nationalities they present is an Azerbaijani, an Armenian, a Georgian, a Chechen or an Avar.

In the West, an even more extensive range of topics, problems, conflicts and words have arisen that are actually taboo, that is, censored, for reasons of political correctness. These incidents show that it is not only the government that periodically tests the strength of the institution of freedom of the press. Society itself does this, including the freest and most liberal ones.

Trends and prospects

Despite the fact that the limited presence of the state in the media market in Russia is objectively necessary, and subjectively the authorities will never completely abandon it, the following scenario for the further development of the Russian media can be considered optimal (and this scenario will be realized with certain deviations):

1. The state, the central government, does not need to have more than one television channel controlled by it (the first or second, maximally covering the territory and population of the country).

2. One or two central television channels should be transformed into public television.

3. The remaining central channels should be re-privatized.

4. The same thing applies to radio broadcasting.

5. The categorical imperative is the gradual withdrawal of all regional and local television and radio broadcasters from the direct or indirect control of regional and local authorities through a direct ban established by law.

6. There is no political necessity for any print media, either central (except for the official publisher), or regional and local (except for purely official bulletins, the army press), to be owned (directly or indirectly) any authorities. A ban on such possession must be established by law and immediately.

7. All printing houses in the country should be privatized and corporatized without any participation of government agencies.

8. The Ministry of Press Affairs should be liquidated and replaced by bodies registering print media (this could be done by the Ministry of Justice) and issuing licenses for television and radio broadcasting (Ministry of Communications).

There is no doubt that as the modern political system of Russia further develops, the development of the media will go in this direction.

Will there ever be full freedom of speech (press) in Russia? To answer this question directly, I can say the following:

firstly, freedom of the press (freedom of the media) in Russia already exists today and in general, although it is not absolute and full-blooded, it still outstrips the level of democratic development of the political regime itself in the country; secondly, if the trend of neo-authoritarianism does not prevail in the world as a whole (which is not excluded), then the level of freedom of the press in Russia will steadily increase; thirdly, until the regional authorities in Russia are deprived of the right to own the media, the central government will not be able to refuse the same, therefore the first step towards further denationalization (otherwise - liberation) of the media seems quite obvious.

Gennady Gubin, vice-president of the KBR:

“Freedom of speech is one of the most important elements of democracy, and it can be partially limited only in some emergency situations. But often, under the guise of freedom of speech, boy reporters broadcast from screens and strips, talking all sorts of nonsense. The tragedy of “Nord-Ost” showed "that the media are not ready to work in self-restraint mode. There is a feeling that for most journalists the desire to shine turned out to be more important than simple human feelings of compassion and empathy. Perhaps journalists themselves should develop a strict corporate code of conduct in extreme situations."

Evgeny Bogachenko, head of the Hydrometeorological Center of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic:

“If we are talking about introducing censorship, additional extralegal and undemocratic measures, then we risk returning to what we recently left. To the “Ministry of Truth” in the end.”

Rimma Nakhusheva, head of the department of especially dangerous infections of the Center for State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance in the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic:

“The media, in the high and pure sense of the word, cannot be limited in freedom. But there must be journalistic ethics and a responsible attitude towards the reliability of information.”

Igor Lutsenko, chief radiologist of the Ministry of Health of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic:

“In no case! The media must find the line between informing and inciting base instincts on their own. And in matters relating to security, self-regulation is needed.”

Mukhamed Pshibiev, deputy of the Council of the Republic of the Parliament of the KBR:

“If we do not take cases related to emergency situations and the need to preserve state secrets, then under no circumstances should we limit the freedom of the media.”

Petr Ivanov, Chairman of the KBSC RAS:

“Of course, it is not necessary. Any restriction on media freedom leads to the concealment of information important to society. In cases where excessive awareness of the general public interferes with professionals in eliminating terrorism, when this is related to the security of the country, the media system must come to self-restraint.”

Anatoly Kravchenko, deputy head of the Prokhladnensky district administration:

“There is a lot of unreliable and biased information in the media at all levels. And therefore certain restrictions are necessary.”

Robert Kochesokov, head of the department of political science at KBSU:

“There is no need for the state to limit them, since the existing laws on the media are quite sufficient. But self-control of the media and journalists is necessary, based on the formation and development of civil society and the establishment of the foundations of democracy.”

Eduard Meshev, associate professor of KBGSHA:

“Of course not. We’ve already been through this. And even today I can’t say that our media are very free. But journalists themselves must develop their own procedure for action in extreme cases. The main principle is do no harm.”

Shamshudin Otarov, assistant to the head of the administration of the Elbrus region:

“Freedom of the media should be limited only to the zone of truth. And if it does not suit someone, then realities should be changed, and not kept silent about topical problems. On the other hand, the viewer and reader do not need comments, only an independent view from different positions is required ".