Mediaboss Marketing

In May 2021, I published a list of Answers to 12 Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments with our friends over at Areo. The great Nadine Strossen former president of the ACLU from 1991 to 2008, and one of the foremost experts on freedom of speech alive today saw the series and offered to provide her own answers to some important misconceptions about freedom of speech. For this entry, I asked Jacob Mchangama, author of the excellent book, Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media, to provide his answer.

Earlier in the series:

Assertion: Disinformation (and misinformation) about such vital topics as elections and COVID must be censored because it constitutes an existential threat to democracy and individual/public health.

Jacob Mchangama: What do the Catholic Church, England under Henry VIII, The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the European Union have in common?

Certainly not much in terms of ideology, ethics, or philosophy. However, for all their fundamental differences each of these states and institutions have prohibited various forms of false information.

For centuries, the Catholic Church was preoccupied with stamping out heresy, which has its roots in the Greek word, haresis, meaning choice. In the Middle Ages, heresy was defined as an opinion chosen by human perception contrary to holy Scripture, publicly avowed and obstinately defended, and could ultimately be punished by death. As late as 1832, Pope Gregory XVI warned that removing the restraints that keep men on the narrow path of truth was a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other and, therefore, the evil of immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty had to be countered at all costs.

Englands Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church, making him the supreme head of both state and the Church of England. To cement his power Henry prohibited publications containing open and manifest errors and slanders contravening the dignity and authority royal of the kings majesty and of his Imperial Crown. Henry built on older precedents, since a Scandalum Magnatum act punishing [F]alse News or Tales scandalizing the king or the Great Men of the Realm had been enacted under Edward I in 1275.

While disinformation is a serious problem worthy of debate and countermeasures, censorship and repression is likely a cure worse than the disease.

On February 24, 1920, a leading member of the German Workers Party (DAP) read the partys manifesto out loud. His name was Adolf Hitler, and his demands included legal warfare against conscious political lying and its dissemination in the press. In Mein Kampf written while in prison Hitler again accused the liberal press of being concerned only with dig[ging] the grave for the German people and REICH whereas the lying Marxist Press was spreading falsehoods to enslave the nation for the benefit of international finance and its masters, the Jews.

According to Hitler, the state meekly allowed the media to hide behind the principle of freedom of the Press and liberty of public opinion, which permitted poison to enter the national bloodstream and infect public life with complete impunity. The solution was to bring the press under state control and free it from the enemies of the people. Shortly after Hitler assumed power through democratic means, the Nazis used constitutional means to expand existing emergency laws permitting the (Nazi) minister of the interior to ban publications that contain obviously inaccurate news, the dissemination of which is likely to endanger vital interests of the state.

And once the Nazis had pushed President Hindenburg to use the emergency provision of the Weimar Constitution to pass the so-called Reichstag Fire Decree to suspend civil liberties including free speech paving the way for a dictatorship, laws against malicious gossip were enacted, which made it a crime to spread rumors about or gossip against the government and its officials.

The European Union can trace its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community aimed at strengthening European integration and avoiding new and devastating wars and persecution like those unleashed by the Nazis. The European Union is committed to democracy and human rights and has a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which protects freedom of expression. However, in early March the EU banned Russian state-sponsored media outlets RT and Sputnik from broadcasting, as a response to these outlets nefarious pro-Kremlin disinformation and propagandistic coverage of the conflict in Ukraine. The ban also requires search engines like Google to delist all search results from Sputnik and RT, and an obligation for social media companies to block their accounts as well as deleting the sharing and reproduction of RT and Sputnik content by other users.

While the scope, severity and consequences of all these laws against false information differ significantly, they are all aimed at protecting against certain forms of false information thought to be particularly dangerous to the fundamental values and institutions of the relevant polity, as defined by the very rulers or political leaders whom laws against false news will be protecting.

This is a lesson of which contemporary authoritarians are keenly aware. In 2021, 47 journalists were imprisoned on charges of spreading false news in countries like Myanmar, Egypt, Rwanda, and Ethiopia, according to data from the Committee to Protect Journalists. Moreover, since the onset of COVID, a censorship pandemic of laws has infected authoritarian states, which prohibits various forms of allegedly false information under the guise of protecting public health, while actually aimed at repressing dissent.

There is little reason to believe that things would be different in America should the Supreme Court decide to roll back landmark First Amendment cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, which now limits the governments power to punish false statements about public issues, in order not to chill vigorous debate and criticism of public officials. The Sedition Act of 1798 showed that even luminaries of the Founding Generation, including Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, were willing to punish false, scandalous, or malicious writings against the government and Congress they dominated, and to use this law in a deeply partisan manner to target their Democratic-Republican opponents.

Those intolerant and tribalist impulses are still alive today. Donald Trump frequently demanded tougher laws against the fake news media. A 2017 poll showed that a plurality (45%) of Republicans agreed that courts should be able to shut down media outlets for publishing or broadcasting stories that are biased or inaccurate, with fewer than 20% of Democrats supporting this idea.

In 2021 when Biden had become president 65% of Democrats agreed that the government should do more to restrict false online information even if it limits freedom of information, whereas only 28% of Republicans were on board. We can be sure that Trump and Biden as well as Democrats and Republicans have conflicting ideas about what types of speech should be deemed inaccurate or false and who should be punished for peddling it.

So, while disinformation is a serious problem worthy of debate and countermeasures, censorship and repression is likely to be a cure worse than the disease.

Nadine Strossen: First Amendment principles permit the government to punish false speech when it directly, immediately causes specific serious harm. Important examples of punishable false speech include defamation, fraud, and perjury. The term disinformation (or misinformation) has no specific legal meaning, but is widely used to designate false or misleading speech that cannot constitutionally be punished precisely because its potential harms are indirect and speculative.

As current debates illustrate, one persons cherished truth is someone elses despised or feared fake news. Speech that critics seek to suppress as disinformation almost never consists of objectively verifiable facts alone, but rather, also involves subjective matters of interpretation and analysis. After all, speakers who intentionally or recklessly utter false factual statements may constitutionally be punished under existing laws such as those against fraud. In contrast, though, the Supreme Court has ruled that [u]nder the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction . . . on the competition of other ideas.

Most vulnerable would be ideas that challenge government policy.

To this day, expression by racial justice advocates continues to be assailed as disinformation. For example, a May 2021 NPR story quoted Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation, as stating: I feel that Black Lives Matter is one of the greatest sources of disinformation. . . They have manipulated the good nature of many people.

The inherent problems with censoring disinformation specifically plague recent laws that are touted as restricting pandemic-related disinformation. The Economist reported in February 2021 that [c]ensorious governments are abusing fake news laws, invoking the pandemic as an excuse to gag reporters and to silence critics of their anti-pandemic policies. Given the inescapable elasticity of the concept of disinformation, restrictions on it can easily be wielded against important information, even in democratic countries. Throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed constantly evolving and shifting views among expert individuals and agencies, as they steadily gather and analyze additional data. Yesterdays life-endangering disinformation can and has become todays life-protecting gospel. As one example, recall the CDCs changing edicts about mask-wearing.

Because of these unavoidable problems, in 2020, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against Puerto Ricos laws targeting pandemic-related disinformation. The complainants are two prominent investigative journalists, who explained that developing stories on matters of immense public concern are often complex, contentious, and murky, so that inadvertent inaccuracies are inevitable even in the most thoroughly vetted reporting.

Multiple studies have concluded that the most fruitful anti-disinformation tool is accurate information that can check its spread and influence: targeted responses to specific disinformation, as well as preemptive general educational approaches, and enhancing critical media skills. Psychological research shows that even more effective than debunking disinformation after its dissemination is prebunking: inoculating people against disinformation before they are exposed to it.

In contrast with censorship, these counterspeech/more speech strategies not only are more compatible with free speech and democracy; they are also more effective in promoting truth.

Continue reading here:
Censorship won't cure disinformation (featuring Jacob Mchangama and Nadine Strossen): Part 17 of answers to arguments against free speech - FIRE -...

Twitter is implementing more warning labels and censorship, the company announced Thursday. The idea is to suppress content and apply red flags to various tweets in times of crisis.

Which content will Twitter target? According to the official company release, a group of outside experts will flag the posts that they deem, wait for it, dangerous misinformation.

During moments of crisis, establishing whether something is true or false can be exceptionally challenging, Yoel Roth, head of safety at Twitter and site integrity, explained in a blog post.

To reduce potential harm, as soon as we have evidence that a claim may be misleading, we wont amplify or recommend content that is covered by this policy across Twitter including in the Home timeline, Search, and Explore. In addition, we will prioritize adding warning notices to highly visible Tweets and Tweets from high profile accounts, such as state-affiliated media accounts, verified, official government accounts.

Helpfully, Twitter provided the following examples of content that will receive warning labels, all of which are subjective:

In other words, current Twitter management will task someone to separate the truth from the lies.

While that sounds shady, and it is, Twitter has been doing this itself for years. We explained how, step-by-step, in a column today. So this news only means Twitter will be more transparent about its rig-job.

And though the experts are sure to be sheep, they cant be worse than the employees who have been enforcing these rules recently. Can they?

Anyway, this new ruling will prove meaningless if Elon Musk ultimately takes full ownership of the platform.

Visit link:
Twitter To Flag and Censor More Content in Times of Crisis, Company Says - OutKick

From her bed in Shanghai, Paloma joined an online protest against the strict Covid-19 lockdowns in her city by sharing a video on the dominant messaging app WeChat. The video, with millions of views already, documented heartbroken voices from a city of 25 million confined for weeks in near-total lockdown: pleas from a son seeking treatment for his critically ill father, shouts from residents demanding food, and cries from babies separated from their parents.

As Chinas frenzied censors worked to delete the six-minute video, titled The Voice of April, people created new variations to keep it circulating on WeChat Channels, a TikTok-like short video service. In one, the clip was embedded onto a picture of Chinas Civil Code. Another combined it with a song by pop megastar Jay Chou. The more it was deleted, the more angry and determined Paloma became.

After sharing a dozen different versions of the video in a frantic hours-long, cat-and-mouse fight with the censors, Paloma who asked Rest of World to refer to her by a pseudonym in fear of government retaliation was too tired to continue. When she woke up the next morning, every single version of the video had been banned and Shanghais harsh lockdown persisted. What had been excitement the night before morphed into despair. Our anger rose like a massive wave, the 29-year-old told Rest of World. But then it just disappeared into the ocean.

In China, offline protests are rare, with gatherings discouraged by the police and closely monitored by the government. As an alternative, citizens join virtual protests, speaking in innuendo and making up codes and dates to keep their dissent alive. Recently, users have flooded seemingly pro-government hashtags with veiled criticisms and even resorted to inventing new languages. But at the same time, the government has grown adept at online censorship and propaganda, limiting the impact of cyber protests to brief outbursts of anger that are erased before they can coalesce into a movement. Researchers and cyber protesters speaking to Rest of World said these already fleeting actions have less impact than ever against the tightening grip of the state.

Its better than nothing, but do not expect a lot of significant political impact, said Fengshi Wu, political science professor at the University of New South Wales and co-author of a recent study of online criticism in China. All this impact is fragmented, localized, short-lived. Its not challenging any institutions or any political legitimacy.

During this Shanghai lockdown, digital protests have focused on individual suffering, food shortages, and censorship, but few voices have explicitly challenged the controversial zero-Covid policy, which President Xi has pledged to stand by. Though millions viewed and shared The Voice of April, reflecting broad discontent with the lockdown, its unclear what participants in this cyber protest were specifically demanding.

Cyber protests still erupt: thousands share the same critical post on Weibo; activists create artwork and memes. But the influence of these actions is dwindling. Resentment on the Chinese internet has become more subtle, and increasingly contained inside small enclaves of like-minded people, according to the study co-authored by Wu. As self-censorship has become a survival instinct, online criticism has become more commonly directed at local problems instead of broader government policies people who dare to question the regime are often attacked as anti-China.

One of the most galvanizing moments of digital defiance happened in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. In February 2020, the death of whistleblowing doctor Li Wenliang, who was punished for warning others about the coronavirus, triggered a torrent of mourning and demands for free speech. A phrase from an interview Li gave before his death started trending on the microblogging site Weibo: A healthy society should not only have one kind of voice. After the testimony of another Wuhan doctor, Ai Fen, was censored, internet users posted translations in foreign languages, emojis, and even Morse code. International observers called the outpouring of anguish by its citizens Chinas Chernobyl moment.

The grief, however, faded from the public arena in a few months. Chinas success in containing Covid-19 before wealthy Western countries also fueled a rise in nationalism. On the internet, where President Xi Jinpings government has spent years solidifying control, the propaganda apparatus stoked anti-Western sentiment and encouraged young nationalists to snitch on critics of the regime. Influencers like pop stars and entrepreneurs are careful to distance themselves from controversial issues.

A sense of hopelessness has silenced previously vocal digital activists. Lily, from mainland China and currently living in Hong Kong, made several posts on her WeChat timeline after Li Wenliangs death brought her to tears. Two years later, she no longer speaks up. Lily, who asked to be referred to by a pseudonym because of fears of political retaliation, said she worried that her WeChat contacts, including family members, might report her defiant stance to the police. In Hong Kong, Lily joined street demonstrations with tens of thousands of others, where she could chant slogans out loud and see just how many strangers were physically standing by her side. But online, she found her voice trapped in an echo chamber. Those posts disappear so quickly, she told Rest of World. Even if they dont get censored, they only appear on the screen for a few seconds before people scroll past.

Users could have social media accounts suspended for weeks or months for sharing whats deemed subversive content known as being put in cyber jail. Im out of cyber jail, a Weibo user posted on April 30. I couldnt say anything during the suspension, and now I dont have much desire to speak.

Though online outrage tests Chinas censorship machinery, the costs are mostly covered by social media companies, forced to hire armies of censors to comply with the tightening rules. The Chinese government still slaps platforms such as Weibo and Douban with millions of dollars in fines for letting posts slip by the censors. Sudden outbursts of online anger are extremely costly for the platforms, according to former Weibo censor Eric Liu. The pressure is enormous, said Liu, who is currently a researcher with China Digital Times. If you dont have enough people to scrub them off, the companies would look really bad to the regulators.

If you dont have enough people to scrub them off, the companies would look really bad to the regulators.

As platforms also expand their features and, as a result, attract more users, the political risk increases. When Tencent launched WeChat Channels to compete with short video platform Douyin, the Chinese equivalent of TikTok, the company made opening a Channels account even simpler than a WeChat account. That made it easier for users to quickly make new accounts to keep sharing The Voice of April. The business of social media is all about traffic. In the case of Chinese social media platforms, the trick is about how to incentivize users to speak up without incurring political or business risks to the platforms, said Guobin Yang, director of the Center on Digital Culture and Society at the University of Pennsylvania. Its a balancing act requiring high skills, because the stakes are high.

Rose Luqiu, a communications professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, said the power of digital activism in China is constrained by censorship, fear of retaliation, and the countrys lack of independent media and nongovernmental organizations. While social media is a decentralized platform and hub of information flows, it lacks authority and leverage with the state, she said.

Although criticism of national policies is scant, its possible for cyber protesters to push for changes locally. At Tongji University in Shanghai, a student protested bad lockdown food by sharing swearing words on the screen during an online meeting with the school management, and others expressed solidarity by creating similar blue-and-red artwork (some were uploaded to NFT marketplace OpenSea.) The protest subsided after the university promised to provide better food.

For others, creating even a fragile, temporary memory is in itself meaningful. The outpouring of online grief in the wake of Li and other whistleblowers testimony allowed people to express their anger, even if it was eventually erased, said Fang Kecheng, a communications professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Changing other peoples minds is very difficult, Fang told Rest of World. Yes, many people were doing it for themselves, but when they did it together, it was a collective action, expressing shared emotions.

More than two years later, doctor Li Wenliangs Weibo page remains active, and people regularly leave comments. There are still many people who remember you, wrote one in early May.

In an authoritarian country like China, said Fang, simply expressing frustration and anger can have the impact of bringing people together. When we talk about impact, we should include more subtle things other than changing policy or regime, said Fang. If some can remember then it already has huge impact, because it clearly shows an alternative narrative to the official propaganda.

Whats left from these ephemeral protests are memories that could, to some extent, challenge the official narrative that leaves out how agonizing many have found these moments. In the weeks following the Voice of April protest, the lockdown in Shanghai only intensified, with online videos showing officers in hazmat suits spraying disinfectant inside peoples apartments and forcing residents to go to quarantine facilities.

In May, Paloma managed to travel to another Chinese city, where she was free after two more weeks of isolation. On her social media feeds, she still shares disturbing news from Shanghai: Residents were seen dragged away from their homes by officers in hazmat suits. Travelers unable to find transportation walked for hours to the airport. Senior and disabled patients were denied proper care in makeshift quarantine camps. I believe most people will remember, but staying angry is hard, she said. If everyone could stay angry, we wouldnt see the same mistake being made over and over again.

Continue reading here:
Cyber protests swelled around the Shanghai lockdown, then vanished thanks to China's state censorship - Rest of World

Military analyst and retired colonel Mikhail Khodarionok, 68, stole the show this week when Circumvention of Russian state TV censorship and criticism of the invasion of Ukraine live.

The situation, frankly, is going to get worse for us, the former soldier said in an interview on the 60 Minutes talk show hosted by Olga Scapieva, one of the countrys most pro-government journalists.

The reserve colonel also said that Russia needs to see reality and that the countrys main drawback is its complete geopolitical isolation.

Practically the whole world is against us and we need to get out of this situation, Khodarionok said.

The comments come amid a wave of arrests of critics of the conflict. About 32 people have been tried or arrested for demonstrating against the war, according to a Radio Free Europe survey by the Russian group Agora, which provides legal aid to victims of human rights abuses.

OVD-Info, a group that monitors repression in the country, mentions more than forty prisoners.

Born in Tallinn, the then capital of Soviet Estonia, and graduated from the Higher School of Military Engineering in Minsk, currently the capital of Belarus, Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarionok started in the Soviet Air Defense Forces in 1971.

Between 1977 and 1980, he commanded the Combat Control Department of the Wireless Technical Forces. Then he became the commander of the anti-aircraft missile division and then a senior officer in the Soviet Air Defense Forces.

Since 1992, he was the chief operational director of the Russian Armed Forces until his retirement in the 2000s with the post of colonel.

He is a military man full of honours. He was awarded the Order of Distinguished Service of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades, the Order for Merit for the Fatherland, presented to him by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2020.

The justification for awarding the award was advantages in the development of the national press, high professionalism, and many years of fruitful work.

This is because after going to the reserve, Khodarionok began working as a military journalist writing for Russian publications such as Military Industrial Mail and Aerospace Defense magazine.

He currently works as a military observer for the Gazeta.Ru publication and the radio station Vesti FM. She has a painting called A Hora do Militarista on the show Das Trs aos Cinco.

This is not the first time that Khodaryonok has criticized the Putin governments role in the Ukraine war.

Three weeks before the conflict began, the colonel published an article explaining that the countrys armed forces would not be able to defeat the Ukrainians in a few hours contrary to what many Russian politicians had said.

He further indicated that the Russian army would not be able to handle the supplies and weapons of Ukraines Western allies, as well as carry out high-precision strikes to overthrow the government of the neighboring country.

He concluded by saying that Russian experts should forget their hateful illusions.

Read more:
The colonel who circumvented censorship in Russia and criticized the war - The Catholic Transcript

Russias invasion of Ukraine has resulted in even stricter censorship and control of Russian religious communities, other public organizations, media outlets, and individuals whether by means of prosecution for the newly created offenses of discrediting the Armed Forces or disseminating false information about them, or pressure from state authorities and religious hierarchies not to condemn or discuss the war.

Lutheran Archbishop Dietrich Brauer, who has left Russia for Germany, said that, at the start of the war, President Vladimir Putins administration made a clear demand of religious leaders to speak out in favor of the invasion.

A pastor in a different Protestant church described to Forum 18 how FSB security service officers visited clergy to warn them not to say anything critical in sermons or on social media.

Several religious organizations have apparently voluntarily endorsed the invasion, particularly the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Its leader Patriarch Kirill has long advocated the concept of Russky Mir (the Russian World), which holds that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus all constitute a single spiritual and cultural space in opposition to the liberal and secular West.

In his Sunday sermon on March 6, Patriarch Kirill claimed that Russia was protecting the Donbas from outside pressure to abide by liberal values, especially as expressed in gay pride parades, arguing that this indicates that we have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance. Pope Francis stated on May 3 that the Patriarch had spent much of a video call on March 16 reading out all the reasons that justify the Russian invasion.

Despite this official support for the war, several Moscow Patriarchate priests have resigned from their jobs and in some cases, left the country after their opposition to the war brought them into conflict with their dioceses.

Father Nikolay Platonov, for example, posted a YouTube video criticizing Patriarch Kirill for having justified in fact, blessed military action in Ukraine, and dismissing the Patriarchs argument about gay parades in the Donbas as ridiculous. He also notes the pressure his diocese has put on parishes to collect donations for the Russian army in Ukraine: No one asked the priests opinion. All those who disagree are being identified they will smear everyone. Nobody will be left out. Referring to President Putin, Father Nikolay concludes: I say this to those who can still see and hear, who still have a conscience. Run, run. A crazy subhuman is in power, who will retain power at any cost. On the altar of his vanity, he will lay thousands and hundreds of thousands of people your children, the children of a neighboring state.

People protesting against the war on the basis of their faith continue to be detained and prosecuted. On May 8, police in St. Petersburg detained Nikita Rezyukov outside Kazan Cathedral and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) for a placard with a quote from the Psalms: Turn from evil and do good. Seek peace and pursue it. Police did not respond to Forum 18s questions as to why they detained him for holding a placard with a Biblical quotation.

Russias media watchdog, Roskomnadzor, also regularly blocks websites with information about the war. Blocked material includes a Belarusian news report on the destruction of Ukrainian religious buildings, and a Ukrainian Protestant pastors appeal to fellow clergy in Russia speak out against the invasion. Roskomnadzor did not respond to Forum 18s inquiry as to why it blocks such material.

Small numbers of clergy and laypeople continue to protest against the war in Ukraine from an explicitly religious standpoint. Those who protest against the war are often punished under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation).

Courts have fined two Russian Orthodox priests and a Baptist preacher for discrediting the armed forces online or in sermons or conversations. Several people have been detained and some charged for using Biblical quotations or religious imagery in individual public protests.

Such public protests continued over the Victory Day May holiday weekend:

May 7, Khabarovsk: police detained local activist Nikolay Zodchy and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 for a placard reading Russian! Conquer the vatnik in yourself! (Vatnik is slang for an unquestioning, jingoistic nationalist; Zodchys placard used a Latin letter V in reference to the pro-war V and Z symbols which have become popular signs of support for Russias war in Ukraine.)

Zodchy also gave a speech to onlookers, footage of which was posted on the Sotavision YouTube channel:

Those who ask, where have you been for the last eight years, I want to ask, where are you now? Why are you crying for the children of the Donbas and not for the children of Ukraine? .. [To] many of you who are Orthodox and observe Christian holidays, why do you put above all else the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, although Jesus Christ taught that it is necessary to love your neighbor and love your enemy? After all, Ukrainians are not our enemies. This enmity exists only in the heads of Russians it was sown there by Putin. Ukrainians are our brothers in both the ethnic and the Christian sense therefore, to those who write that I should go to the Donbas, you should go to Mariupol, Kharkiv, Bucha, and other towns and see for yourself what the so-called Russian World has done there.

May 8, St Petersburg: police detained Nikita Rezyukov outside Kazan Cathedral and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 for a placard reading Turn from evil and do good. Seek peace and pursue it, The Bible, Psalm 33:15 [as numbered in the Russian Synodal Translation] #NoToWar.

Forum 18 wrote to the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Interior Ministry and the St Petersburg City Prosecutors Office on May 12, asking why Rezyukov had been detained for quoting the Bible and why this was considered grounds for prosecution under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

According to human rights news agency OVD-Info, as of May 13 more than 15,000 people have been detained (usually for a few hours or overnight) for participating in anti-war protests. These have included both large-scale demonstrations and individual actions such as wearing Ukrainian colors or displaying anti-war posters and placards (including those which have directly quoted from the Russian constitution or even President Putins own speeches).

As of May 5, also according to OVD-Info, from Feb. 24 police had initiated at least 1,731 cases across Russia and in illegally Russian-occupied Crimea under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) for making anti-war statements either in public spaces or online.

By April 28, 39 people had been charged or placed under investigation under various parts of Criminal Code Article 207.3 (Public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation), according to OVD-Info.

So far, Criminal Code Article 207.3 is known to have been used against only one person for explicitly religious opposition to the war Nina Belyayeva, a Protestant and Communist municipal deputy in Voronezh Region. During a meeting of Semiluk District Council, she called Russias invasion a war crime. She later wrote: I realized that if I kept silent, I would not be able to respect myself. I wouldnt be a true Christian and human being. She fled Russia in early April.

Father Nikolay Platonov, a parish priest from Chelyabinsk Metropolitanate (Moscow Patriarchate), requested in early April to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat, meaning that he remains a priest but is not formally employed in a parish, cathedral, or other institution) because, as he said in a video explaining his decision, I cant be silent any longer, and because After [this video], our church hierarchy will inevitably want to get rid of me with some shameful [legal] article. When a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church starts to speak the truth, he immediately automatically becomes a pedophile, or a thief, or a drug addict.

Metropolitan Aleksey of Chelyabinsk and Miass granted his request on April 8, according to a letter Father Nikolay holds up to the camera.

In the video, posted on his YouTube channel on April 16, he criticizes Patriarch Kirill for having justified in fact, blessed military action in Ukraine, and dismisses the Patriarchs argument about gay parades in the Donbas as ridiculous. He also notes the pressure his diocese has put on parishes to collect donations for the Russian army in Ukraine: No one asked the priests opinion. All those who disagree are being identified they will smear everyone. Nobody will be left out.

Referring to President Putin, Father Nikolay concludes: I say this to those who can still see and hear, who still have a conscience. Run, run. A crazy subhuman is in power, who will retain power at any cost. On the altar of his vanity, he will lay thousands and hundreds of thousands of people your children, the children of a neighboring state.

Father Nikolay was among nearly 300 Russian Orthodox priests to sign an open letter calling for reconciliation and an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine. The letter criticized the suppression of protests against the war, and stated that we believe that the people of Ukraine should make their choice on their own, not at gunpoint, without pressure from West or East.

Another priest who signed the open letter, Father Sergey Titkov, also requested to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat) on March 30 for health reasons, according to his letter to Ryazan Diocese, which he posted on his Facebook and VKontakte pages.

A letter from Metropolitan Mark of Ryazan and Mikhailov, dated March 29 and also posted on Father Sergeys social media, stated that people who had attended the Church of the Intercession in the village of Turlatovo had informed diocesan authorities that Father Sergey was not reading the Prayer for the Restoration of Peace during services, a fact confirmed by the priest himself at a meeting with the diocesan secretary. The Metropolitan demanded that Father Sergey provide a written explanation by April 4 of his non-fulfilment of the blessing of the Holy Patriarch, who calls on faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church to offer this prayer at every service.

(Patriarch Kirill issued the Prayer for the Restoration of Peace on March 3 to be read in all churches during the Divine Liturgy, including in Moscow Patriarchate churches in Ukraine. The prayer in Church Slavonic refers to the peoples of Holy Russia, who come from a single font of baptism under Holy Prince Vladimir [of Kyiv, who brought Christianity to Rus] and asks that God establish in their hearts the spirit of brotherly love and peace and thwart the intentions of foreigners who want to take up arms against Holy Russia.)

In another letter of March 30, Metropolitan Mark also demands a written explanation within ten days of Father Sergeys posts on his VKontakte page. Such posts included reposts of articles condemning the war in Ukraine from ahilla.ru a website critical of the Moscow Patriarchate and reposts of a political character (particularly one allegedly comparing President Putin to Hitler and another containing swear words).

At present, the Metropolitan remarked, it seems appropriate not to confuse the minds of people who are already in a state of depression, strong feelings, [and] mental pain, but on the contrary, as far as possible, share with them spiritual warmth, [and] console and support [them]. It is impossible now to make assessments of what is happening, because they will not be correct.

Whether there was pressure on the bishop from the authorities, I dont know, Father Sergey told Forum 18 on May 7. Had he not stepped down as he did, he believes the diocese would have transferred him to another church where the senior priest would report to the bishop on his conduct, that I didnt read the new Prayer for Peace, and so on, or to live in some monastery as a reader, which I would have refused. That is, they would have rattled my nerves, and other peoples, and it would all have ended the same way. I wanted it over as soon as possible, and not to have it turn into a circus.

In 2019, Father Sergey was also among Russian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) priests who signed an open letter in defence of people arrested during protests in Moscow against the authorities refusal to register opposition candidates for local elections.

Deacon Dmitry Bayev wrote to the Vyatka Diocese on Feb. 25, asking to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat) until the situation is settled, since as a Christian holding the rank of deacon, he could not participate in services at which prayers were offered for the government and armed forces. He posted the letter to social media on the same day.

On March 11, the Diocese banned him from serving on the grounds of three Apostolic Canons, including Canon No. 25, which refers to being found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft despite the fact that Bayev had not yet been charged with any offence under secular law. The Diocese announced an ecclesiastical tribunal.

Forum 18 wrote to the Vyatka Diocese press office on May `1, asking what the outcome of the church tribunal was, and why diocesan authorities had banned Bayev from serving in church under Apostolic Canon No. 25 when he had not committed any of the named offences and before any criminal case had been opened. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

The Investigative Committee opened a case against Bayev on March 23 under Criminal Code Article 207. 3, Part 2, Paragraph d (Public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or based on hatred or enmity against any social group).

It does not appear that this was because of any protests made on religious grounds, but as Current Time noted on April 1, because of his vociferous general condemnation of Russias actions in Ukraine, including comments that Ukrainian troops had sent 17,500 orcs [a derogatory word for Russian soldiers] to the next world and that Russian troops were occupiers.

Bayev has also posted about the Genocide of the population of Ukraine by Russian orcs (with a series of pictures of destruction in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol), has called the FSB security service a terrorist grouping, and is highly condemnatory of the Russian government and army and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Bayev is now outside Russia, he told Idel Realii on April 12, and does not intend to return, because I was given to understand that as soon as I cross the border in the opposite direction, they will immediately take me in.

The degree to which state authorities are putting pressure on religious leaders and organizations at different levels is unclear. Asked whether Russian Orthodox diocesan authorities were acting autonomously in disciplining clergy over their views on the war, a priest told Forum 18 that Russia has not been just taken over by enemies or extraterrestrials. Becoming a bishop can only be done by being willing to play by certain rules.. No special pressure [from the authorities] is needed here.

According to Archbishop Dietrich Brauer, head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Russia, the Presidential Administration issued a clear demand to all religious leaders to speak out in support of Russias invasion of Ukraine. Brauer gave a sermon in Moscows Cathedral of St Peter and St Paul on Feb. 27, which consisted of thinly veiled criticism of the war. He left Russia for Germany shortly afterwards and sees no possibility of return in the near future.

I believe that under no circumstances is it appropriate to put pressure on religious leaders, Archbishop Brauer commented to independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta on March 22. On the contrary, it is they who can become intermediaries in achieving sustainable peace.

In an interview with Die Kirche (a weekly church newspaper in Berlin and Brandenburg) on April 14, Brauer said: We are witnessing the blackmail of religion. But we shouldnt abandon the truth of the gospel, because then we have no future. He also noted that prayers in Russian churches cannot specify that we have in mind the people in Ukraine, the images and horrors of the war.

Brauer described the invasion as unimaginable in an interview on March 17 with Magdalena Smetana, press officer of Wrttemberg Diocese. We were not allowed to talk about the war, pray for peace, or contact our Ukrainian brothers and sisters, he said.

The Presidential Administration made a clear demand of all religious leaders to speak out and support the war. Most did. [My] Catholic colleague refers to the Vatican and is silent, the Jewish chief rabbi, who also has American citizenship, found clever words. He called on everyone to work for peace. We could have joined that. I wanted to write a joint statement with all religious communities, but the others didnt agree. Together we could have made a difference.

I clearly and publicly distance myself from this war, which is not just a war against Ukraine, but a war against humanity. It is not carried out in our name.

The website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Russia still lists Brauer as Archbishop, but notes that due to his absence, his duties are being carried out by Deputy Archbishop, Provost Vladimir Provorov.

An official statement issued by the Church in March (signed by Provorov) noted that we feel united with our country and we pray for our people, for the well-being, freedom, wisdom and strength of our state. It goes on to acknowledge that parishioners may have different beliefs and views. The doors of our churches remain open to all. We regard all believers as brothers and sisters. At the same time, we avoid political discussions and splits in the communities.

We deeply regret that people are now suffering and dying in Ukraine, the Lutheran statement continued, and we call on politicians to reach a peaceful resolution to the conflict as soon as possible.. Despite all the political divisions in our societies, we feel our spiritual connection with our Ukrainian co-religionists and pray for the speedy onset of peace and that there will be no hatred, bitterness and confrontation between our peoples.

A Protestant pastor from a non-Lutheran denomination, who asked not to be identified, told Forum 18 that the security services are exerting pressure on religious communities at a local level. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, FSB officers in one city have visited at least two Protestant pastors for prophylactic conversations, warning them not to post material criticizing the war on social media, or to speak out against it in church. The officers warned them that they could face prosecution if they did so and it would be better not to write or say anything about the war.

According to the pastor who spoke to Forum 18, the FSB security service has long shown interest in any Ukrainian connections churches may have, such as when the church received visitors from there.

After undercover officers went to one Protestant church in the Mari-El Republic in 2019, prosecutors charged both the church and a visiting Ukrainian musician with unlawful missionary activity under Administrative Code Article 5.26, Parts 4 and 5.

Since the Russian invasion, the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) has blocked dozens of webpages, both Russian and foreign, which describe events in Ukraine as a war, discuss Russian losses or alleged atrocities, or criticize the Russian government.

On April 20, at the request of Russias General Prosecutors Office, Roskomnadzor blocked access to an article entitled Russian troops purposefully destroy churches and places of worship in Ukraine, published by Belarusian news outlet Brestskaya Gazeta on April 11. The article outlined the destruction of at least 59 places of worship as of March 25, Christian (including those of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate), Jewish, and Muslim. It also noted the deaths of priests in Russian bombardments of Ukrainian towns and villages.

(As of May 8, 116 places of worship and other religious buildings had been destroyed or damaged in Russian attacks, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and Information Policy.)

A few days later, the article disappeared entirely from the Brestskaya Gazeta website. Roskomnadzor demanded [that we] delete this article, staff at the newspaper told Forum 18 on April 26. Since the site is hosted in Belarus, we had to delete it. They did not explain why they had to abide by Roskomnadzors demand, as the newspaper is registered and its website hosted outside Russia.

Roskomnadzor blocked another Brestskaya Gazeta article (about how to talk to relatives who do not believe in Russian atrocities in Ukraine) on April 13, which has also been removed. According to GlobalCheck, which monitors internet censorship in Russia, Brestkaya Gazetas entire site is inaccessible in Russia, despite not appearing to be blocked as a whole by Roskomnadzor.

On April 1, also at the request of Russias General Prosecutors Office, Roskomnadzor blocked a Russian-language appeal on the foreign Protestant website invictory.org by Valery Antonyuk, head of the All-Ukrainian Union of Churches of Evangelical Christian Baptists, to Protestant pastors in Russia, Belarus, and elsewhere.

Antonyuk talks about how Russian soldiers destroy cities, wipe out villages, rob and rape in Ukraine, condemns the silence of Evangelical leaders, and calls on them to speak out against the war: Where are todays Niemllers and Bonhoeffers in your churches? he asks, in a reference to German pastors who opposed the Nazis. Where are Gods pastors who clearly call aggression aggression, annexation theft, and presidents who unleash bloody wars criminals? Many Christians and their pastors, unfortunately, today believe more in the new bible, Russian TV, than in the testimonies of brothers and sisters in faith.

Roskomnadzors demand to invictory.org dated March 26 and seen by Forum 18 describes Antonyuks appeal as containing untrustworthy information which may contribute to the destabilization of the situation, as well as the creation of conditions for mass violations of public order and public security on the territory of the Russian Federation. Roskomnadzor demanded that the website take down the page within 24 hours and inform it when it had done so. Roskomnadzor warned that if the website failed to take down the material, it would be entirely blocked in Russia.

According to GlobalCheck, invictory.org is inaccessible in Russia, despite not appearing to be blocked as a whole by Roskomnadzor.

Forum 18 wrote to Roskomnadzor in the afternoon of the working day of May 10, asking why it had blocked these webpages and on what grounds it could demand the removal of material from a site hosted abroad. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

This story is republished from Forum 18.

See the article here:
Russian Religious Communities Opposed to Ukraine War Face Pressure And Censorship - Religion Unplugged