Shlegel: news on militants should just report their liquidation

Robert Shlegel, a Russian State Duma Deputy and a member of the "Edinaya Rossiya" (United Russia) Party, has brought to consideration of the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament a draft amendment to the law on the mass media, assuming a ban on any citing of terrorists' statements.

In his blog, Mr Shlegel asks to support his initiative and states: "The only news about militants should be about liquidation." The MP explains his indignation by the fact that the Internet for some days already presents an appeal of Dokku Umarov, militants' leader, made in connection with terror acts on March 29 in Moscow.

"It's inadmissible for the major editions and news agencies to provide pulpit to assassin and terrorist Dokku Umarov, who is in federal search," said the deputy.

On Monday, Mr Shlegel's press service made a statement: "It should be noted that the responsibility for stabilization should be born not only by the bodies of state power, but also by public organizations, civil society activists and - not after all the others - by mass media. Meanwhile, the latter publish terrorists' statements, which is inadmissible."

The initiator of the amendment told the "Caucasian Knot" correspondent by telephone that his point was Article 4 of the law on mass media.

The law says that "it is forbidden to use mass media for disseminating materials containing public appeals to terrorist activities and justifying terrorism."

The MP offers to add: "…any materials on behalf of the persons who are in search or convicted under charges of involvement in terrorist activities."

Mr Shlegel, former press secretary of the youth movement "Nashi", believes that the Google should delete all the records with terrorists' appeals; and similar things should not appear in the web any more. "The Google is registered in Russia, and it has its legal entity here; thus, it's the duty of the respective agency," he said.

His amendment will be considered in the near future by the State Duma profile committee for information policy. Also, the amendment was sent to the Government of Russia, Constitutional court and Council of Federation.

Nikolai Svanidze, chairman of the commission for interethnic relations and freedom of conscience of the Public Chamber, made his comment on the MP's offer: "In no case terrorists should be put live on air; as to citing, as a rule, the general sense of their statements is given, and literally - not recommended. If Mr Shlegel means this, I'll not argue."

"However, if he offers any tougher measures," Mr Svanidze has added, "then it will certainly be a muzzle on mass media. But even if we talk about the first version, one should mind that we have some selective manner of law enforcement here; therefore, we can assume that in reality things will be still tougher. Be it my will, I should not touch the law on mass media at all."

"Let the statement that 'news on militants should only report their liquidation,' remains on Mr Shlegel's conscience. Otherwise, how should we know who militants are? And that exactly militants were liquidated? If a terrorist says that he takes responsibility for a terror act, or on the contrary, rejects his involvement, how should the public know about it if not through mass media? Here, Mr Shlegel has gone too far. As to broadcasting militants' appeal, I wouldn't do that," Mr Svanidze said.

Svetlana Gannushkina, head of the committee named "Civil Assistance" objects to Shlegel: "I think that what he offers won't help in war on terror but will contribute to still more closeness of our society."

"The today's State Duma, which is under 'one-source command', may quite well pass the amendments, I'll not be surprised," she added.

"We need to know the ideology of terrorism," Ms Gannushkina believes. "Militants - this is not one-two persons; they have their large environment, from where they recruit their new members. We need to talk with these people for them to know our ideas and why the society is against violence, and why it is criminal. Only then potential militants will be able to look at the ideology from aside."

In Ms Gannushkina's opinion, the openness and accessibility of information can play a positive role in counteracting terrorism.

"I'm against placing obscene or offensive reports in the Internet, but we'll achieve nothing by bans. I think that appeals to violence and cruelty that appear in the web and might lead to negative consequences, should be deleted by website moderators," she said.

"But forbidding mass media to speak about what happens here, what the reasons of militants' actions can be - means to isolate a certain part of the population, which can be liquidated without trial and inquiry. I don't understand the statement of our President Medvedev about liquidation of people. What sort of formulation is it? Are they rats or cockroaches?" Ms Gannushkina was perplexed.

Garun Kurbanov, Minister for National Policy, Information and Foreign Relations of Dagestan, believes that mass media should not be allowed to quote terrorists' extremist statements.

However, as the Minister added, the present version of the Russian law already assumes inadmissibility of such citations, and Mr Shlegel's amendment would add nothing. It is necessary just to enforce the existing rules.

"Some balance should be still found, since to ban everything is no way out. On the one hand, we need to deprive militants of the tribune and chances to affect broad audience and call to violence, but, on the other hand, it should be done without censorship," Mr Kurbanov believes.

"Both mass media and citizens should be able to make comments on terrorists' appeals and statements and form their negative attitude to such things. With no reference to certain words, it's rather difficult to comment them. Here, a dilemma evolves. But I'd do like that: ban quoting and broadcasting terrorists' statements in mass media, but leave a chance to comment and discuss them," he continued.

He believes that just messages "about militants' liquidation" are not enough, since we need - facts in hand - to dethrone their ideology. Mass media should present analytical studies of their views and moods.