A Saratov resident was fined for three publications with a rainbow flag
[ad_1]
Saratov resident Inna Mosina was fined for three publications with a rainbow flag – she was found guilty of demonstrating extremist symbols. At the hearing, the woman explained that she used the rainbow as an artistic medium and did not have the theme of homosexuality in mind, but the court did not believe her. Moreover, the controversial posts were made several years ago – long before the “international LGBT movement” was banned in Russia as extremist. Experts explain that courts consider such publications to be a “continuing violation” and advise people to “clean up social networks” or delete accounts altogether.
On Monday, February 5, the Leninsky District Court of Saratov considered an administrative case regarding the publication of three posts depicting a rainbow on the social network Instagram (owned by the Meta corporation, recognized as extremist and banned in the Russian Federation). Let us recall that the protocol on “propaganda or demonstration of symbols of an extremist organization” (Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) was drawn up on December 13, 2023 by an employee of the Saratov Center “E”. This was the first such case after the Supreme Court, on November 30, 2023, granted the Ministry of Justice’s claim to ban and recognize the LGBT International Social Movement as an extremist organization.
According to the case file, materials from Center “E” were received by the court on January 18. The first meeting took place on the same day, the second on January 30. It became known that the reason for the administrative case was three posts published by photographer Inna Mosina three, five and six years ago. According to Svobodnye Novosti news agency, in court, Ms. Mosina stated that she used “elements of the rainbow” for artistic purposes – she was interested in “creative visual solutions.” In particular, one of the publications was devoted to the problem of alopecia: the heroine of the photograph was a girl with a disease that leads to baldness.
“My goal is to convey that these people should not be laughed at. That people with and without hair have equal rights,” explained Ms. Mosina.
Another photo is a photo of the artist herself, on which a digital sticker with a rainbow image was superimposed. “When you post stories, you can put different stickers. He was among the popular ones; there was no need to choose. It’s colored. As an artist, I love color. Even my sweater is bright. I hope it’s not a flag,” the artist was quoted as saying by Free News. The third picture was of a man in a spacesuit in the snow. “I wanted to add color to the photo with the astronaut. Everything there was white,” explained Ms. Mosina.
Her defender Denis Rudenko noted that the Supreme Court’s decision on what exactly is prohibited LGBT symbols has not yet been published.
In turn, the police officer told the court: “I’ve seen this symbolism before and I can imagine what it looks like – in the form of a rainbow flag.” However, he was unable to answer the defense’s question about how many colors and in what order there should be in an “extremist” rainbow.
Nevertheless, at the hearing on February 5, the court considered it proven that Inna Mosina’s social network had posted images of the “rainbow flag.” Judge Natalya Afanasyeva imposed a fine on the photographer in the amount of 1.5 thousand rubles. (the maximum punishment under the charged article is 2 thousand rubles or 15 days of administrative arrest). The defense intends to appeal. “There is a “fork” in determining the punishment, but if this is the first offense, then they usually give a lower limit. But this does not mean that a higher authority will not impose a harsher punishment. All risks are borne by the citizen himself when he decides to appeal,” warns the head of the Argument legal bureau, Andrey Larin.
“Courts consider such offenses to be “continuing,” explained lawyer Stanislav Seleznev, who collaborates with the Network Freedoms project. “This position contradicts both the law on the inadmissibility of retroactive effect and the clarifications of the Supreme Court on criminal cases of extremism – but the practice under the Code of Administrative Offenses is already formed.” Typically, courts count the statute of limitations from the moment a police officer discovers an online publication. This date is indicated in the report on the discovery of signs of an offense or the inspection report of the Internet resource.
“Thus, a post from 2003, 2013 or 2023 could be ‘discovered’ in 2024,” says the lawyer. “And publications with a rainbow made 10–20 years ago may well bring users under administrative arrest.”
Mr. Seleznev added that in 2020 an important note to Art. 20.3 Code of Administrative Offences. “It obliges the prosecution to prove not only the presence of similarity of symbols with extremist ones, but also the presence of signs of propaganda or justification of extremist ideology. However, courts in all regions ignore this note,” says the lawyer. “Therefore, to minimize risks, we can advise Russians to delete profiles on social networks. And for the minimum – carry out manual cleaning of dubious publications. If you have already become involved in a case regarding the demonstration of prohibited symbols, then the requirement to apply the note to Art. 20.3 of the Administrative Code – and prove the signs of propaganda of extremist ideology through expert research.”
Let us remind you that on January 25, the Volga City Court fined a man 1 thousand rubles. for publishing the “LGBT flag” on social networks. The press service of the court emphasized that at the hearing he “repented, explaining that he posted this symbolism out of stupidity.” And on January 31, the Nizhny Novgorod court sentenced Anastasia Ershova to five days of arrest for earrings in the form of a “frog with a seven-color rainbow.” On Monday, Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters that he was “not aware of any laws that ban rainbows in Russia.” He refused to comment on court decisions, explaining that he does not know “all the details” of the cases.
[ad_2]
Source link
