The stated function of the new law is to create a register of banned sites, including “sites hosting child exploitation media, instructions on creating weapons and illegal substances, advocating suicides, drugs and psychotropic substances and so on,” explained the Voice of Russia radio service. This, in itself, is an acceptable and desirable purpose; but Voice of Russia went on to outline the ensuing controversy. “An unnamed source of a large internet company expressed outrage of the whole industry: the bill has not been publicly discussed, it's being fast-tracked and the requirement of banning certain IP addresses is a ‘questionable technical solution’.”
The questionable technical solution was raised by Marina Junich, government relations director of Google Russia. It attacks symptoms rather than causes, and could easily be by-passed. Voice of Russia describes it like ‘carpet-bombing’; “like shooting a rat with bunker-busters: sure, you'll kill it, but you'll also take down innocent victims.” The broadcast went on to highlight an earlier case against YouTube. A complaint against a single extremist video led to blocking the entire YouTube site.
The bill has now had its second of three readings in the Duma. After the third it becomes law. Newsmax has pointed out that although the Kremlin has made no public comment on the bill, it was drafted by Putin’s party and is expected to succeed. “It follows other recent laws that have targeted groups Putin views as rivals or bad influences,” reports Newsmax. “A law imposing heavy fines for protesters was quickly pushed through parliament in June, and a bill that would label NGOs receiving foreign aid as ‘foreign agents’ was approved just last week.”
Supporters claim that the law is aimed solely at universally accepted objectionable content. Nevertheless, Russia's Presidential Human Rights Council is very concerned, believing it to be “a giant step towards a real, legal censorship regime for Russian Internet infrastructure.” According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), “HRC has proposed that the bill should be withdrawn from debate, and instead be submitted for public discussion.” EFF is supporting “the Russian-language Wikipedia, LiveJournal, and other websites in support of freedom of expression on the RuNet.”
“The filtering of websites for any reason is prone to unintended consequences, particularly misuse, overblocking, and mission creep,” warns Brett Solomon, executive director of Access (an international NGO that promotes open access to the internet). “The bill’s vague language could be used to justify Russia’s continued crackdown on free expression and human rights,” Solomon said. “The internet is too important an enabler of human rights to make it subject to hasty decisions by lawmakers who have not consulted the full range of stakeholders who will be affected.”