It’s now illegal in Russia to share an image of Putin as a gay clown | Hacker News Reader

It’s now illegal in Russia to share an image of Putin as a gay clown

washingtonpost.com

124 pointsJarred59 comments

That only took a couple years to go from internet extremism to gay putin clowns.

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/internet-extremism-bill-pass...

Something, something, slippery slope?

Well, this is how power functions of course.

  >> A Russian court has ... sentenced 
  >> the culprit to compulsory psychiatric care.

https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168

Eek.

That's part of the Russian tradition of forced psychiatric care. Sounds like a case of "sluggish schizophrenia" to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_...

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/30/countries-where-you-coul...

Not condoning what's happening in Russia, just pointing out how prevalent similar practices are around the world.

Turkey, Poland, South Africa: these are parts of the same story, of a global rise in populism-exploiting authoritarian governments.

Thailand, Iran: did we expect better?

The only interesting example here is that you can get in trouble for calling Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands a "whore".

Please don't call Poland "authoritarian" - in fact I would argue that we have more democracy and civil liberties than

Germany (noone here is censoring newspapers which write unconvenient facts, like that about immigrants raping women),

Sweden (you won't be arrested for criticizing government's immigration policy),

UK (noone is trying to make encryption illegal),

or USA (noone here is creating mass surveilance programs, or requiring you to provide all your online accounts with passwords on entry, or forfeiting your cash without even charging you with something).

There's just normal, democratically elected government and a bunch of paranoid celebrities and journalists who make a lot of noise and FUD.

Please tell us who exactly is censoring newspapers in Germany?

No, criticizing the Swedish government’s immigration policy will not get you arrested.

Sweden has a clear religious bias: a muslim imam can[1] be anti-gay, while a christian pastor cannot[2].

[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-23/sweden-hate-speech-...

[2] http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/crimi...

What has that got do with the current topic?

Åke Green was not charged for critizing the government, but for denigrating homosexuals. And the article you cited does not mention that he was aquitted by the Supreme Court of Sweden.

A teacher in Poland fired for sharing WOŚP video on Facebook.

We can exchange anecdotes all day.

Why on earth would you include South Africa in your list?

You can call the South African president whatever you like as many have and currently do with no repercussions as is your right.

IANAL, but I wouldn't expect harsher penalties than those for regular defamation. Getting into more trouble for insulting the queen than someone else would mean that there is no equality before the law, and I wouldn't expect the judgement to hold if taken to ECHR. A cursory googling reveals that the ECHR decides mostly based on whether the limitation to the freedom of speech is necessary and/or proportionate.[1]

1 - http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf

Poland stands out because it's EU, and the Eu is supposed to be better.

But since the EU didn't do much when Hungary started their quasi-dictatorial tendencies, there's not much to do about Poland, if only because two bad apples mean there will never be unanimous agreement about any of the two.

In Poland that law exists since '90, when the goverment was less populistic.

I've watched a lot of Putin and this is exactly how he is going to defend this law at his next q&a.

He'll say most countries, even liberal democracies, have laws that regulate certain types of speech - such as insults in Germany, racism in France, insults in Australia, libel laws in the UK etc. - Russia is no different, we just have different sensibilities.

When the gay propaganda law was bought in, he used pretty much the same argument - that it isn't a law against gays, but rather a law to protect the 'human dignity' of the majority of citizens.

He wouldn't be completely wrong - which is why free speech needs to be all or nothing. The slippery slope when you start carving out exemptions is very real, and not only applies to those nations but is used in justifying the actions of others.

Free Speech in the US isn't "all", either, but besides that I would argue that the US don't need to be afraid of a slippery slope, they've already slipped right off into "how could anyone think that's a good idea" territory.

The Streisand Effect is going to hit this hard.

So what? No one in Russia will start drawing gay-putins, of the fear being subject to compulsory psychiatric treatment. And no one outside Russia is going to draw it because they don't care.

GIS for "gay Putin" suggest that plenty have already been drawn, and not all of them seem to be likely Russian in origin.

I kind of suspect that will continue, if not accelerate.

TBH, so far I haven't seen a single instance of this picture shared after it became illegal.

Things are getting worse every day here, consider these:

http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-activist-convicted-reposting-r...

http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-supreme-court-review-convictio...

They would be surprised to know what "putín" means in the slang of many Spanish-speaking countries.

Ironic, the list of banned images is hosted on http://minjust.ru/ru/node/243787

I can't help but think that almost every future biography of Putin will mention this law, and the most unflattering ones will contain examples. Sort of a long-term Streisand Effect.

Future Buzzfeed article: "Only 21st century kids will remember these 10 images of Putin in drag. Number 8 would have gotten you life in prison!"

"Number 8 would have gotten you life in prison!"

That's Art Reeducation Camp, comrade.

LOL, Russian Government apparently don't understand how Internet really works.

No LOL for the person subjected to "compulsory psychiatric care"...

You underestimate them. They've created a web of vaguely worded, overbroad laws which everybody is violating all the time without even trying. It allows the government to demand any user's data at any time, to have all Russian ISPs block access to any site by administrative fiat, and to bring up on charges anyone they choose. It's been working quite well - not in hermetically blocking access to some stupid image, but in reducing traffic to opposition sites by 90% (I believe that this is what they boasted about when they first blocked access to Navalny's blog) and in distracting a number of people from their work with endless legal trouble. Not much of a LOL.

This is quite accurate. The developments have created a culture of fear, where speaking or acting against authority is while technically possible, is unwise (from the practical point of view of a single individual).

Agreed. The value in this kind of censorship isn't that the government can put troublemakers in jail. It's in scaring everyone into considering how what they're about to view or write will look to the government years from now, before they view or write it.

More like, Hacker News reader doesn't understand how power really works.

It's not about preventing anyone from ever seeing this image. It's about oppressing people who would share it. Somebody posts this online, gets a million views, and goes to jail? That's a win for the government, not a loss.

It's also illegal in France to insult officials.

I believe thats a was not is

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/26...

careful, some people are going to misinterpret your accurate assessment of laws that are completely benign to the collective conscious as a "whataboutism" simply because the soviets made equally accurate assessments of civil rights double standards

I don't know how insulting someone, specially if it is the president of the country should be totally ok.

Freedom of expression should end when the right of others to be respected starts.

It is not ok in most of the countries of the world.

Certainly in the US when I was living there it was not ok to insult the President, note the president with capitals because for Americans there is only one president in the world and it is theirs. The President was a demi God, like the founding fathers, you better behave or else.

Probably this has changed with Trump and the WaPo, NewYorkTimes, The Economist and BBC all day trying to shoot him down.

I was a long time Putin critic but now after so long non sequitur, ab hominem, argumentum ad passiones Westerm Media coverage trying to create a new cold(or hot) war, I am starting to defend him.

Those newspapers used to be serious but they are taking the way of Reddit(that used to be as serious as HN). They are blinded by personal hate and becoming more and more war propaganda.

Why has this been downvoted?

Because it is halariously misinformed and not deserving of the respect he thinks we all should have. It is quite ironic really.

Is this satire itself?

>Freedom of expression should end when the right of others to be respected starts.

"Be respected" is such a vague catch-all term to incorporate into legislation. What happens when some action you take is deemed "disrespectful" towards a political figure or other person?

>Certainly in the US when I was living there it was not ok to insult the President

This makes zero sense, unless you lived in extraordinarily isolating circumstances. Americans can, do, always have "insulted" the president, whether in discussion or blogs or opinion pieces or graphics, all the freaking time.

>Probably this has changed with Trump and the WaPo, NewYorkTimes, The Economist and BBC all day trying to shoot him down.

You are woefully misinformed. Plenty of liberals "insulted" George W. Bush during the 2000-2008 tenure, and plenty of conservatives "insulted" Barack Obama during his. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous.

Do Americans disagree? Of course. Do we fight about stuff? All the time. Do we insult each other and write long prose about how the other guy has got it all wrong? Every day. And sometimes it sucks. But the freedom to do all that is what matters.

When were you in the US that it was not acceptable to insult the President? This has certainly not been true at any point in my lifetime.

Freedom of expression should end when the right of others to be respected starts? I find it disrespectful to advocate against the freedom of expression like this? How do you resolve that paradox?

I think you are making a very valid point. Even Putin is an individual and its just wrong to shame a person with photoshop images.

Imagine if instead of Putin, it was someone whom you knew closely. I agree with the courts verdict.

There is no good way to determine a fine line between artistic freedom and hurting someones sentiments. Just as there is no good way to determine someones motivations or quantify various human traits.

I don't see the big deal. I'm all for it. I know plenty of countries where such unnecessary and unfounded attempts at publicity and attention are illegal, including my own home country. Saying he's a gay clown is pretty much fake news. Everybody hates fake news.

Everybody hates fake news.

Well there's this also thing known as "satire", you know.

Actual satire is one thing, but can a childish insult such as calling someone a "gay clown" really be classified as satire?

I don't know how else to put this, but: yes. Yes it can.

scares me that people on this forum, of all places, do not understand this extremely salient point.

Just as I expected, I'm downvoted into oblivion.

Anyway, maybe in the US there are no limits to satire, but I am sure most of the rest of the world has limits to satire. Ridiculing the premier of a nation in such a manner does not in any way aid to the strength of face of that nation to the rest of the world. Just look at how the ridiculousness of the Trump satire makes a joke out of the US system. Just saying...

More downvotes in 3, 2, 1 ....

ALSO, TO YOUR POINT: Who is the judge of what is satire and what is fake news? If Donald Trump called Obama an illegal immigrant today, or better still a wiretapper, is that satire or false accusation? Could he possibly eventually defend himself saying it was satire, his own type albeit? This whole satire thing is a slippery slope. It must have limits.

Replace "ridiculing" with "criticizing" in your third sentence. The statement is also equally true - criticism of a world leader from within their own country certainly doesn't add strength to the public perception of a nation.

But do you see how dangerous that would be to make illegal, and how it applies to "ridiculing" as well?

Criticism has room for discussion. Criticism can be destructive and constructive. Ridiculing is never constructive. What does ridiculing yield? What benefit does ridiculing have?

You say that criticism can be destructive and constructive, which is true. Ridicule, defined as "[applying] contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior" can swiftly and temptingly become "deconstructive criticism". Or, "criticism that I find humiliating because I don't like it".

Does most ridiculing, aside from satire, have a benefit? Probably not. But it would be a mistake to make any speech without benefit illegal, especially since it is just so easy for anyone in power to conveniently select people for jailtime when legislation uses such broad words as "ridicule".

What's your point? Not only is ridicule non-beneficial, it's destructive. Which is why I wouldn't blame any system that chooses to punish it.

It's not the satire of Trump that makes us a joke....

Illegitimate should not imply illegal, because there is no fine line, and this kind of legislation all too quickly leads to non-democracy.

I don't see the big deal. I'm all for it. I know plenty of countries where unnecessary protesting and unfounded attempts at publicity are illegal. Criticizing the government is pretty much fake news. Everybody hates protestors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com