Putin's veto on false law in the media was hidden for three days

Obviously, it won't spoil the grand finale of the Duma's work.

President Putin has vetoed a “fake” law passed by both chambers, which allows journalists and the media to be fully responsible for referring to a fake report from another media outlet. This is the second veto of the head of state for all 5 years of the State Duma of this convocation.

State Duma meeting. Source: website of the State Duma of the Russian Federation

As you know, Vladimir Putin rarely uses his constitutional right to block the entry into force of a law passed by parliament. If the “yamb” is revealed from the Kremlin's point of view after the State Duma voted “for”, the document is usually wrapped by the Federation Council, but this is not a very common case. This assembly holds a presidential veto for the second time in five years: in December 2016, under pressure from public parent organizations, a law was passed to create a unified student registration system.

The law, which the head of state now categorically disliked, was a law that changed unexpectedly and radically as it went through various stages of reflection. When it was introduced last summer, signed by United Russia Sergei Boyarsky and Yevgeny Revenko, he only suggested clarifying the rules on age marking in the media law and it looked quite harmless – the media themselves were interested in clarifying these rules. But in the second reading, which took place on May 18, 2021, an amendment signed by the same authors on a completely different topic appeared in the text. The regulations of the State Duma in fact prohibit a change in the concept of the law after its adoption at first reading, but unfortunately this is happening.

What is the essence of the matter? Now, Article 57 of the Media Act exempts an editorial office, editor-in-chief or journalist from administrative or even criminal liability for disseminating false information if an insidious fake “literally reproduces news and materials or fragments thereof distributed by other store media, including online publications.” “He referred to information from another medium – it is a different medium and should be punished if the information turns out to be a lie.

So Mr Boyarsky's and Revenko's amendments, supported by the Committee on Information Policy, Information Technology and Communications, by a majority of MEPs and senators, proposed punishing journalists or the editorial board for bogus ones, citing a source that was properly cited (not sleep), if not possible find and prosecute the media editor-in-chief who generated the false information. It is impossible to punish the lie of the one who invented it – they will punish the one who believed this lie and spread it. By the way, the fines for spreading false information are very serious. For editors, they will reach several million rubles …

When the bill was discussed by the State Duma in the second decisive reading, the spokesman, Mr. Boyarsky, did not even briefly tell his colleagues about the substance of the changes made to the document: “ready for second reading, three amendments were made, supported.” votes of the United Russia faction. Neither the government representative nor the president in the State Duma had any comments …

All decisions on the presidential veto usually attract the attention of the general public and are announced immediately upon adoption. But here's a different story. The decision, according to information in the electronic database of the Duma's legislative work, was made by Mr Putin on 15 June. On the same day, a letter signed by the head of state arrived at the State Duma and sent to the relevant committee on 16 June. The State Duma worked on the 16th and 17th, but no one said a word about the sentence – apparently so as not to spoil the solemn finals of the convocation with such a clear indication of marriage.

As the text of the letter itself has not yet been published, it is not yet possible to find out with certainty exactly what the President did not agree with. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who answered questions from journalists, said briefly on June 18 that the law had been sent for revision because Vladimir Putin “had questions to relieve the media of responsibility.”

What will be next? The law returned to the State Duma. The Constitution leaves several possibilities. First, parliament may try to overcome the president's veto – it requires that the constitutional majority of both chambers be prepared to insist. Secondly, a conciliation commission can be set up to finalize the law, taking into account the President's remarks, and after the changes have been made, the law has been adopted again – a possibility suggested by Mr Peskov. By the way, in December 2016, according to a previously rejected law, such a commission was created, but no compromise could be reached and the law was simply removed from consideration.

As it may be, it will now be necessary to address the issue following the Eighth Convening State Duma elections, said Alexander Khinshtein (“ER”), head of the Duma's Committee on Information Policy, Information Technology and Communications. He believes there is a problem with the media's responsibility for quoting, and the idea of ​​the law should be completed: “When someone reprints a piece from a” black “site, it can be nothing more than a blackie campaign and the responsibility for that should be.”

Источник www.mk.ru

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *