Almost two-thirds of VTsIOM respondents support censorship in the media for the sake of stability and order

Almost two-thirds of respondents support the idea of ​​“state censorship” for Russian media, follows from a VTsIOM survey conducted back in July 2023, the results of which published on Tuesday on the eve of Russian Press Day, celebrated on January 13. Proponents of restrictions motivate them by the need to maintain stability and combat false information. Opponents of censorship see it as a threat to objectivity and the principle of freedom of speech.

1,600 respondents took part in the all-Russian telephone survey “VTsIOM-Sputnik” on July 28, 2023. Sociologists asked them whether the Russian media needed “state censorship” (citizens were not reminded that it was directly prohibited by the Constitution), and asked them to motivate their answer. The researchers compared the results obtained with data from a similar survey in 2008.

63% of respondents were in favor of censorship (“certainly necessary” – 24%, “rather necessary” – 39%).

In 2008, supporters of censorship were 58%. But the share of its opponents also increased – from 24% in 2008 to 30% in 2023 (“rather not needed” – 17%, “definitely not needed” – 13%). Both camps have replenished their ranks with undecideds: their percentage has decreased over 15 years from 18% to 7%.

A typical supporter of censorship, according to these data, turned out to be a resident of the province over 45 years of age with a secondary or special education, assessing her income as high or average and preferring television to all other media. And a typical opponent is a young city dweller who actively uses the Internet, with incomplete secondary education and low (by his own assessment) income.

Supporters of censorship most often (44%) perceive it as a means of “ensuring stability and order in society, preventing panic.” Sociologists also included respondents in this category who remembered “internal enemies” and the need to “protect society from anti-state propaganda.” Justifying the idea of ​​restrictions, citizens also said that “the correct information about the SVO must be presented,” “society must believe in victory,” and “there are things that people should not know about.”

In addition, apologists for censorship consider it effective for protecting against false information (20%), enhancing culture (10%), countering violence, vulgarity, LGBT propaganda (9%), educating young people and raising patriotism (9%). 22% of respondents found it difficult to give any arguments. “Over the past 15 years, the motives of supporters of state censorship of the media have undergone noticeable changes. In 2008, the key argument in favor of censorship was the need to regulate the flow of immoral, immoral content (40% of the number of supporters), today this request is gradually disappearing,” noted the authors of the study.

The arguments of opponents of restrictions have also changed.

In 2008, 24% of them motivated their position by the fact that censorship is contrary to freedom of speech and human rights in general. Now they most often (39%) explain their rejection of restrictions by saying that “information must be truthful and objective to form public opinion.” Another 17% see censorship as a restriction of freedom of speech and democracy, a tool for hushing up problems and propaganda (15%) and a threat to pluralism and competition (14%). 6% are in favor of unrestricted freedom of the media, while 19% refused to give reasons for their answer.

Commenting on the results of the survey to Kommersant, political scientist Ilya Grashchenkov recalls the heterogeneity of the term itself: “Censorship can be party or state. In the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia there were two different types of censorship, it was regulated differently, and complex mechanisms of interaction with content producers were built differently.” At the same time, the objects of regulation, according to him, are always clearly regulated: “Military censorship is based on what materials can influence the course of hostilities, the party censorship censors attitudes rejected by the ruling party, and the tsarist censorship was in the nature of a ban on insulting certain strata – for example, nobility.” The current tools of power include “simpler instruments” that do not require the presence of specialized departments and rather form a mechanism of self-censorship, the expert emphasizes. A VTsIOM poll shows that people generally approve of this approach, Mr. Grashchenkov continues: “But 30% of those who are against it is quite a lot.” The change in the arguments of censorship supporters, who have moved from defending morality to other motivations, “is due to the fact that people have been fooled by all these concepts of foreign agents and the like,” the political scientist believes:

“People would not like to see points of view that pose a threat. But this is also connected with fakes, which the majority cannot separate from the truth.”

Political scientist, member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation Alexander Asafov also recalls the threat of fakes that dominates the mass consciousness: “People understand perfectly well what information and disinformation are, each of them has faced information attacks in one form or another. The flow of information is very difficult to rationally process: the signals are so different that it can be difficult to establish reliability.” However, this also shows a continuation of the “paternalistic logic,” the expert notes: “A significant part of such threats is removed with the help of digital hygiene, but nevertheless people are trying to shift this part onto the state.”

At the same time, there is a rational grain in the use of the censorship mechanism, Mr. Asafov is sure: “For example, the publication of information about military installations indicates to the enemy the direction for attacks, so such things, of course, should be censored. But this does not negate personal responsibility.” But an analysis of the arguments of opponents of censorship reminds of another phenomenon – the taboo nature of the term itself, the political scientist believes:

“The very word censorship carries certain connotations, and people oppose those connotations.”

With the development of the information society, there will be more supporters of censorship, but the term will probably transform into something more neutral – like “limiting destructive information,” suggests Alexander Asafov: “After all, this is not just about a total ban, it’s about regulation. This explains the high numbers that will continue to grow.” The authorities also see the corresponding demand from society, therefore the requirements for content creators and distributors “will certainly increase,” the expert summarizes: “And responsibility will arise for this.”

Grigory Leiba