in ,

President Putin’s anti-fake news law is brilliant, but the West makes more

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. This law is brilliant, for it hits the would-be slanderer right where it counts – in the pocketbook.

We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?


Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Welsh
Tom Welsh
March 20, 2019

‘The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia”‘. This may just be an inaccurate translation. But as it stands, in English, it refers to “information”. I can’t see how information can “show blatant direspect” or be “insulting”. Surely facts are facts. Of course, if it’s untrue then it isn’t “information”. What such initiatives always overlook is that there is a vast “grey zone” between true information and lies. If the law even threatens punishment for saying something that cannot be absolutely proved, it… Read more »

Smoking Eagle
Smoking Eagle
Reply to  Tom Welsh
March 20, 2019

There are true facts and false facts, though, just as there is true and factual information, and information that is entirely the opposite and designed to mislead. We think we have all the scientific facts on a particular subject, and then along comes some technological advancement that disproves them. The first facts we believed were true at the time, but they became false later. Think of all the screaming headlines topping articles accusing the government of Country A of committing terrible atrocities against its own people that provide not one shred of evidence to back up the accusations. Joseph Goebbels… Read more »

Herbert Dorsey
Herbert Dorsey
March 20, 2019

In regard to the last statement of this article that the news media’s purpose is to make money and by fining them for false news, this media Will have more incentive to publish accurate news, I disagree. In the U.S. many news media companies are losing customers especially because people are losing faith in the accuracy of their reporting. This has been a steady trend ever since the “weapons of mass destruction” false story used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. Yet, the CEOs of these companies still O.K. publishing news they know is false or spun in such… Read more »

Olivia Kroth
March 20, 2019

What people in the West say or think is of no relevance for Russia. Russians live by their own rules and laws, rightly so.

Smoking Eagle
Smoking Eagle
Reply to  Olivia Kroth
March 20, 2019

Yes, they have the right to keep lying, insulting, fake news stories, fake “facts” and anti-Russia and anti-Putin propaganda, out of the media in Russia, and particularly that which is based in Russia, passes itself off as Russian, but is foreign owned. It seems that western countries do entirely the opposite because they support media that lie and insult, and that present fake news and fake “facts” without any evidence to substantiate their stories, and indulge in spreading anti-Russia and anti-Putin propaganda far and wide for their masters. Gone, or mostly gone, are the days when journalists in the west… Read more »

Olivia Kroth
Reply to  Smoking Eagle
March 21, 2019

Regarding western media based in Russia that have a very negative slant, I would name the MOSCOW TIMES. They do not exactly “lie” but they present news in a biased way. Is this “fake news”? I would not call it that, although the tenor is definitely anti-government and anti-Russian in general. And yet the journalists of THE MOSCOW TIMES pretend to like Russians. They make their news sound as if they wanted to “protect” Russians from President Putin. Thankfully, there is TASS and there is RT, both in English, as a counterweight to the slandering MOSCOW TIMES. So people can… Read more »

Hartmut Pilch
March 21, 2019

The law as cited here actually contains rather high hurdles for its application. It is in no way a carte blanche for censorship. Moreover it goes straight to the target, making the authorities responsible for specifying the information they want removed from the public. This makes it much better than what we already have in Germany, where intermediaries are threatened with astronomical fines if they fail to remove what they see as meeting some rather loose standard of legality. Also, the claim that this stifles criticism of Putin seems misleading. It is about denigration of the institutions of the state,… Read more »

March 22, 2019

Donald Trump suggests that “starting our own Worldwide Network” is a solution to fake news. This could work, but such a network must have a charter to report honestly based upon the facts and to allow all sides of any controversy to be heard. This is clearly in contrast to the practices of other existing state run newsmedia, including the BBC and Australia’s ABC and SBS. On the “Worldwide Network,” those who, like President Trump, support effective border control and building the wall should be able to put their views, whilst those who oppose the wall and advocate unlimited immigration… Read more »

ABC’s Ted Koppel admits mainstream media bias against Trump [Video]

Bercow blocks Brexit vote, May turns to EU for lifeline (Video)