Rus News Journal

" Article " slander " will concern more likely not to opposition, and representatives of the power "


Article " slander " can return in the Criminal code. Corresponding amendments were brought in the State Duma zamglavy committee on security and counteraction of corruption by Alexander Hinstein. It has discussed a situation with conducting Andrey Norkinym.
Also Paul Krasheninnikov offers, you with it as - that together have made it?

Yes, it is our general amendment, not only Krasheninnikov, authors of the amendment are some deputies: she is Irina Jarovaja, the chairman of Committee on security to corruption counteraction, Dmitry Vyatkin.

give reason, please, why it is necessary, in your opinion it to return? It only absolutely was recently is taken.

Yes, less a than year ago the structure was dekriminalizirovan. But, I want to tell that I and then considered that it am wrong, because this structure is present at criminal codes of almost all countries of the world. Well and in the conditions of the Russian validity when nobody is responsible for the words, both #150; and such reputatsionnoj experts at us are not present. Structure decriminalization for slander will cause only growth chaotic absolutely groundless ohaivanija people. It is wrong, for this reason we suggest all - taki to return structure into place.

when Dmitry Medvedev offered this article dekriminalizirovat, he spoke about necessity of liberalisation of public life. Now there is no this inquiry in your opinion already? Or it has not turned out to make it?

Liberalization - business good. But no means always it is justified, at least, not on each structure. And abstracting from a concrete subject on slander, I to you will tell that we have made today, in my opinion, an unreasonable thing. For example, we have toughened, speaking about the general liberalisation, responsibility for those who commits crimes concerning minors. It is correct and it is necessary, but at us today it turns out that the pedophile, receives term bolshy and with more severe constraints of the maintenance, than the murderer. At all my hatred to pedophiles, nevertheless, murder is obvious a crime heavier.

it is clear, but I now all - taki would like about slander. We some time ago just on air talked, when you told about story " the New newspaper " and Bastrykina?

I remember.

it would be possible to accuse now you of slander, let us assume, on Bastrykina.

How?

you told that you knew about how there was this conversation. And it has then appeared that there it is not clear, whether there was a wood, whether there was no wood.

I Will disagree with you. For me it is not clear. I on - former am convinced that all was equal as it was described mine by the colleague.

you do not expect, what the quantity of the affairs connected with slander will increase?

No, I do not expect. Moreover, you have resulted a concrete example, I on a concrete example will show to you. It is a basic thing, there is an essential difference between criminal structure for political crimes and honour and dignity protection in civil legal proceedings.

here that example which you result: if to assume that Alexander Ivanovich Bastrykin to achieve excitation concerning me business for slander at it is not present prospect on a jot for one reason will be the third participant of our conversation: for this purpose it is necessary to establish zavedomost. That I declare those or other things and in advance obviously I realise that they do not represent the facts, and I not only do not realise it, but I continue to insist that in wood was equal how I told all.

Clearly. But simply many say that people various in the interests can use such articles. How to put any barrier?

people various in the interests can use Any structure, any article. We will not put such barrier never. But anticipating your question, considering that journalists, set, as a rule, it: " a leah Can be used introduction of this structure, how the tool in struggle against opposition? ". I will respond that today the state has enough toolkits for struggle against opposition. And, besides, I will notice that the law has no retroactive effect, therefore in case our amendments will be supported, those events which will occur already after their introduction into force will fall under action of this article of the Criminal code only. That is everything that the opposition does, roughly speaking, today, under structure will not fall. And by the time of when article will earn, it is necessary to commensurate that you speak and to be responsible for the words.

here is how time a question on work. I would like you to ask, what particularly you offer on the sizes of the penalty, on imprisonment?

I do not have near at hand bill

At least it much more differs from old standards?

not essentially. But we expand qualification. That is, if in the previous structure in former edition of 129 articles of the Criminal code was all - navsego three parts today we offer already five. In particular, we expand kleveticheskie fabrications when they are interfaced to charge as it is told at us in the bill, calling loathing or crimes of sexual character. Considering certain specificity the Internet - spaces to such things, actually enough.

as to sanctions. The maximum sanction on this structure provides till five years of imprisonment, but it only at qualifying signs. That is simply slander as that cannot be punished so severely, here it is a question only of slander if it is interfaced to use by the person of the official position, that is thus it obviously does not concern opposition, and, more likely, to the contrary concerns representatives of the power.

On practice as article worked earlier: real terms of punishment were appointed very seldom. I think, as in our case with support of this article real terms will be appointed too extremely seldom. As a rule, court, taking out the decision, will select punishment different ways, as the penalty. First of all, I think that it will be the penalty.

thanks. It is amusing that you all time respond me about opposition though I just about opposition do not ask you

The matter is that you for last half an hour about the ninth journalist who calls to me behind comments. Our eight with you of the colleagues, calling to you, asked me exactly this question. I have decided to save your time.

to me it is pleasant that I am more original, than my colleagues. Thanks.

Probably, it is connected with professionalism of the edition. Thanks you.