"Human worthiness has the highest value"
More than thousand persons have subscribed under the petition against the bill of slander. Petition on the Internet has begun in the evening on July, 11th. On Friday the State Duma intends to accept the document which returns in UK article about slander in the second and third readings. One of authors of amendments, the chairman of committee of the State Duma on security, the party member " an United Russia " Irina Jarovaja has discussed a situation with conducting Alexey Korneyev.
infringers are threatened now with penalties to 500 thousand rbl. And representatives " an United Russia " say that the maximum penalty can reach 5 million rbl. of Fear of journalists quite unequivocal, the initiator of petition, the correspondent of the newspaper " has noted; " Grigory Tumanov.
How you consider, fears of journalists are groundless?
On a broader scale, I believe that the one who does not use slander as the tool for the decision of any questions, cannot have, as a matter of fact, anything against this bill. In my opinion, value of human worthiness in any society should be the highest. Therefore responsibility for slander, as well as any other crime, comes only in the event that it is made.
you know, pravoprimenitelnaja practice in Russia, especially the last some years, the law that dyshlo.
I will disagree with you, because today the unique way for maintenance of public interests is a following to the law. Therefore we have today a legal regulation absolutely in different fields of activity. And only so it is possible to provide interests of a society, to provide pravootnoshenija in a society. To provide, including, and morals of these relations, and all those standards of behaviour which, as a matter of fact, distinguish a society.
but there is such sensation that deputies hurry with acceptance of laws which, in general, call ambiguous reaction in a society. A leah so it how you think?
In my opinion, it is a question of elimination of blanks. Therefore - that no haste absolutely is present. Today there is a consecutive work of parliament. So happens that during this period when work of parliament and #150 comes to the end; autumn, spring session always there is enough considerable quantity of questions which dare. Anything in it especial is not present.
And still the discontent is great enough, including, not only among journalists that is clear enough, but also among deputies, public figures. How you think, nevertheless why?
In my opinion, absolutely not clearly. I all - taki adhere to the point of view that the slander is absolutely unusable, indecent, dishonourable tool in any variants. Therefore, in my opinion, for a freedom of speech, for truth is not present and will be never any restrictions. And those who maliciously is going to extend obviously false information, in the people always named slanderers, and, by the way, it is very bad to them concerned.
Irina Anatolevna, instead of seems to you strange, what it is literally in the autumn, in November of last year, article from the Criminal code at the initiative of present leader of the United Russia party Dmitry Medvedev has been cleaned, and now it there comes back contrary to the initiative of the present prime minister?
you know, on a broader scale - that, we have accepted variety of system decisions, which are directed on designating in a society, in the state value and the importance of business reputation. We have entered norms which allow to dismiss people with trust loss. We discuss with " the Support of Russia " for example, a question on business reputation. Considered possibility of drawing up of such open register on the various facts of corruption, illegal behaviour.
to me it is thought that if we show today such high levels of responsibility for business reputation, for its loss, probably, would be fair and correct, and is fair, that the state and a society have confirmed also readiness to protect business reputation of people and a reputation. And then, I will repeat, I consider that irrespective of position of the person, human worthiness that defines its reputation has the highest value.
yes, I agree with you absolutely. It is possible to tell that in November of last year United Russia party members all - taki were mistaken, when voted " against "?
You know, I think that today the establishment of responsibility for slander as format of acknowledgement by the state and a society of an estimation of a reputation and business reputation will be absolutely adequate and correct measure. Not only in a format of bills and approaches which establish responsibility for the citizen for loss of this reputation, but also protection by the state of business reputation of the person.
has passed time, as though have a little bit thought again, and have decided all to change?
Actually, the legislation develops, proceeding from the general public estimations, proceeding from the whole system of the legislation which is stood.
and what has occurred from November till July of this year what has allowed to change the position?
Look, we after all talk that we have confirmed and have already passed the law. And I to you have resulted one of them when if you have made any illegal act and if you have lost, as a matter of fact, the basis to trust to yourselves, it is all is connected with questions not simply imidzhevymi, and reputatsionnymi. We build today as a whole - in a society and in the state - the price of business reputation as success primary factor. Not, how much the person dexterous and enterprising and how much it is faultless in the professional acts, in the professional work. Therefore it is made logically that there were these balances. And I, to tell the truth, not so well understand a tonality. It seems to me that if to support a slander recognition as behaviour normal form what here to discuss further - then? Mass media, in my opinion, just those sources which should be maximum " for " the truthful message and the information report, unless not so? I why - that always so considered.
Undoubtedly, I simply speak about reputatsionnyh costs " an United Russia " which for half a year changes the opinion literally, for 180 degrees.
And I consider that for today it is much more correct and more important to follow that is necessary for a society. It is much more correct. Therefore I consider that " an United Russia " today offers in what the society is interested.
you think, what tomorrow the document will be accepted, despite public protests, in the second and third reading?
I, for example, know, opinion of the public and another. When we speak " opinion of the public " we do not say that it only one individual any. There are different points of view. But if to speak about world practice, if to speak about approaches of other European countries we will see that today all citizens of other countries appreciate, value reputation, protect it. And today the legal system of these states too is built in such a manner that establishes a criminal liability much higher, than that is offered at us. And, there there is such concept a defamation. You, probably, know about it. It is much more serious, than slander. Because we - that offer responsibility for distribution of data, obviously false. And the defamation assumes information distribution even the authentic.
the maximum penalty can reach 5 million?
I think that the parliament will discuss, these questions will be absolutely opened.
penalty for slander will increase to 5 million roubles. Fair punishment? Such poll spends " FM " on the page in Facebook. Vote and share opinion you can also.