Is censorship necessary? What does censorship apply to? Russian artists threaten to boycott Louvre exhibition over censorship

Is censorship necessary in modern Russia, pros, cons?

Censorship was, is and will always be and in all states.

It exists in the so-called democratic states, which are proud that they allegedly do not have it.

But censorship must be carried out in moderation.

Not against dissent, but against propaganda of depravity, cruelty, fascism, fanaticism and all kinds of discrimination on all grounds.

In Russia, for example, they say that there is no freedom of speech in Ukraine.

They show that Russian journalists are simply not allowed to cross the border, and that is the solution to all problems.

In my opinion, things are happening in Ukraine right now that those who create them would like to hide.

In such a situation - mutual accusations - a natural thing, and only time will reveal the truth.

Any censorship is harmful, since any prohibition arouses interest in the forbidden topic. Everything is allowed

which is not prohibited by law. In our country, censorship concerns 4 topics -

1 One-sided coverage of events in Ukraine

states

4 Presenting all the activities of the extra-parliamentary opposition only in a negative light.

Good day! It is obvious that there is practically no censorship. What's on TV, what's on the Internet. In the second case, everything is running to the point of impossibility. Scary for the next generation of kids! As one of my acquaintances said: Stalin is not on themquot ;. Oh, save Mother Russia!

Well, the concept of censorship everyone understands in their own way. For example, I also act as a censor for my children - there are cartoons or movies that I forbid them to watch, and often my opinion does not coincide with the opinion of the government. So, for example, I considered it acceptable to watch the Percy Jackson film for my children (9 and 10 years old), despite the fact that the age limit for this film is 12+, but I forbid the inclusion of the cartoon Masha and the Bear (which is new) for a kid who is a little over 2 years. Why? Yes, I just don’t like this cartoon, and I think that it shows a negative behavioral model. So is our government. Instead of closing the TV channels that have the most nonsense and violence (pepper, NTV, TNT, Ren-TV), they preferred to limit themselves to 16+, 18+ and so on. So where is the censorship?

Each person puts his own meaning into the concept of censorshipquot ;. For example, for me there is nothing shameful to be photographed naked, and for some women it is very embarrassing to appear in front of a man without a veil.

If you are interested in my subjective opinion, then I agree: freedom of speech in Russia is not enough, I would like more. But the nonsense about the closure of torrent trackers and criminal prosecution for the premature disclosure of answers to USE questions would be less.

Censorship of modern Russia is sometimes simply necessary. . .

That censorship - which would have preserved, already almost vanishing, already almost illusory, already almost illusory and extremely vague concepts and ideas about elementary moral and ethical norms and moral and moral values. . .

For now. . .

For now Our society. . .

The favorite question-stamp of the 90s: where freedom ends and permissiveness begins - is no longer relevant now. In this issue of the Debating Club, we discuss the opposite topic: does our society need censorship?

It's all about editorial policy

Maria Butina, member of the Civic Chamber of the Altai Territory, head of the information center:

- Censorship is prohibited by Article 29 of Part 5 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and, in my opinion, there is no censorship today. There is an editorial policy, and the right of each publication is to publish what it likes and is interested in. What exactly will be discussed, each edition decides independently: according to the law, any media has the right to such a choice, and today they all post materials that they themselves consider necessary.

The task of our information center is to monitor the media, track the problems of society, we both take information and convey it. The Public Chamber widely raised the topics of Barnaulinveststroy, the Barnaul forest ... Our materials are regularly published by the official website of the administration of the Altai Territory, other publications - of course, in accordance with their editorial policy and, possibly, making some corrections. We do not oppose this - let everyone use the information as they see fit, this is wonderful.

The state should not interfere in editorial policy and prohibit something. I think that censorship is equally dangerous in all spheres of life - in politics, social issues... If the state begins to control media resources, we will get completely controlled publications. This would be contrary to our Constitution, which is unacceptable.

In the West, a real picture of reality is provided by the fact that the media, although they are dependent, are many. They offer a variety of points of view, and due to this, a more or less objective reflection of the world is created. Ideally, I would like a similar situation to develop in our country: there would be many publications, and I am not at all opposed to them publishing materials from their positions. I would not like one opinion to prevail and the media of one camp outnumber publications of another orientation. In this case, we will simply get a bias towards one of the points of view, today we sometimes encounter this. Although such phenomena, of course, cannot be called censorship.

A person should have a choice where and how to receive information. I believe that we have it: in the end, we can always establish our own publication.

We need moral censorship

Igor Volfson, deputy of the regional Legislative Assembly:

- The authorities are trying to ensure that opinions that do not coincide with the official line are not available to a wide audience. Therefore, it is absolutely obvious to me that we have political censorship in our country, and it exists even in the media, which are obliged to publish the positions of at least those political forces that are represented in power. We do not have any particular problems with finding information, we have problems with its delivery.

On the other hand, there are unthinkable numbers of films and programs that are harmful to young people, and there is no moral censorship. In both directions, we are lagging behind the states that we were going to look up to when we changed the political system. In developed countries, they limit the corruption of young people, because they understand how it ends. At the same time, they provide an opportunity for people with different views to speak out, and no one forces influential and literate people into one party.

Political censorship leads to the fact that people begin to think that all power has nothing to do with real life, and under these conditions, interest in political life is lost, thoughts appear that nothing can be changed. For most people, real life is completely different from what they are told about it. People despair, drink too much, become drug addicts, slowly die out. It is possible that over time we will have those who will act outside the current legislation and show that everything is not so good.

The absence of moral censorship in the electronic media leads to the fact that young people are not brought up the way they should even for a capitalist society, and the number of crimes is growing. In my opinion, at this stage, editors and journalists themselves should carry out moral censorship, but this is far from always enough, so special structures should be created. And here you can try to learn from the experience of Western countries and create, for example, public councils that will determine what these or other programs promote and how this affects the education of young people. For example, on our television one time in the mornings, when I was going to work, porn was driven. I was always afraid that the children would wake up early and watch. But with this, order was put in place, they stopped showing. There would be a desire, and everything can be solved.

As for museums, theaters, the approach here is exactly the same: if art is beyond what society considers possible, then this should not be. If cultural institutions are supported by budget funds, the state and local authorities have influenced and will continue to influence them.

The artist himself defines the boundaries

Natalya Tsareva, head of the contemporary art department of the State Art Museum of the Altai Territory:

“Perhaps there is no obvious censorship today, but invisibly it is still present in our lives. Probably, this is not entirely correct, people still need to have complete information. Basically, censorship is felt in political materials, when our media are late with some messages. For example, data has already appeared on the Internet, but television is still silent, radio is silent, newspapers are even more so ... The Western media have already published everything, and we are late. I felt all this keenly in connection with the latest events in Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Those who are interested in the events in the world are quite ready for the perception of complete information, and one should not deprive them of this opportunity. Society needs the truth in its entirety, and no one at the top decides whether you need this or not.

With regard to certain television programs, if they are supposed to be watched exclusively by adults, you just need to move the show to a later time. With us, sometimes you turn on a cable channel during the day and you can come across something that makes you feel ashamed in front of your own children. There should be internal censorship of those who make programs.

In some areas - I'm talking about art - it would be better if the artist himself acted as a censor, so that the author was aware of the limits of what was permitted. Because otherwise creativity, some of its moments overflow.

If we compare the two eras - the past and the present, then we used to say: under socialism, the artist is not free, everyone advocated that the market should give freedom to the artist. The market came and announced that the best picture is the one that is for sale. But we, the audience, saw that this was not the case at all. An artist who is eager to sell his creation does not give a damn about high art. Therefore, the artist is still responsible for his creation, he must have an internal censor. At the same time, the artist always listens to public opinion, and if there is a system of incentives, even intangible ones, he will have a desire to create.

I have been working in the museum for almost 26 years, and in recent years there has been no censorship, although we have done very bold exhibitions. We also organized avant-garde exhibitions, but no comments were ever received - the authorities always treated the specialists of the art museum with great confidence. Now museums have the freedom to choose artists, exhibits, as long as it meets the ideals of aesthetics. But we have an exposition, before the viewer sees it, it is accepted by the academic council, and this is a very strict body of control.

Anything but violence

Vyacheslav Desyatov, Doctor of Philology, Lecturer, Altai State University:

“Of course, I am against censorship. Except for things that go without saying: terrorists must not be allowed to speak, films with scenes depicting naturalistic violence and erotica must not be shown on daytime television ... Let's say, until 21.00. And after nine in the evening before such films there should be a notice, an age limit. For some reason we still don't do it. But occasionally high-quality feature films appearing on the first and second channels are driven deep into the night air, and stupid serials are spinning all day long.

Political censorship on television is even worse. The only channel that does not depend on the state information dictate - REN-TV - has been expelled, as far as I know, from the main network. Almost the only talk show where people say what they think - "School of Scandal" - can again be seen only at night.

What about election campaigns? Walk through the city now: there are posters of representatives of only one party - United Russia. And soon, probably, posters of the LDPR will be added - a party that, in fact, is a faction of United Russia. What is this, a fair election campaign?

By the way

Censorship Almost Killed Kenny, but an attempt to ban cult American animated series in Russia failed. As a reminder, on September 8, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation made a submission to Rossvyazkomnadzor in connection with the display of a number of animated series on the TV channel. Among the "guilty", in addition to "South Park", were named "The Simpsons", "Family Guy", "Metalocalypse", "Lenore - Little Dead Girl", "Angry Boy" and others as "promoting violence and cruelty, pornography, antisocial behavior , replete with scenes of mutilation, infliction of physical and moral suffering, aimed at causing fear, panic, horror in children.

In support of the TV channel, pickets and actions were held in the two capitals. The Federal Tender Commission (FCC) unanimously recommended that Rossvyazkomnadzor renew the license for the 2×2 TV channel. Rossvyazkomnadzor will make the final decision to prolong the license, which expires on October 17.

The creators of the animated series "South Park" responded to the problem of censorship on television with the episode "Great Public Problem". In it, the word "shit" sounded 162 times without a bleep, that is, an average of once every eight seconds, and there was a counter on the screen that kept track of each utterance of the word.

Reference

Censorship- this is a form of restriction of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, television and other media, due to legislatively approved norms for protecting the interests of the state, society and public institutions. Censorship exists in all states, even where its introduction is prohibited by law, but everywhere it has its own specifics. Very often, censorship is also used by corporations and financial structures to cover up the traces of their crimes. According to Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, censorship is prohibited in our country.

Deeper into the topic

Alexey Simonov, President of the Glasnost Defense Foundation

I will say right away: I am for censorship. You will think that this is a paradox - they say, how can a journalist oppose freedom of speech? But freedom is different from freedom, and censorship is also different from censorship.

“It is impossible to live in society and be free from society,” said grandfather Lenin. And no one disputes his correctness. The man was wise. That, however, did not prevent him from doing contradictory acts. Sometimes tragic - that are still echoing around and, perhaps, will continue to echo for decades. But that's not what it's about.

A person must limit himself, permissiveness is unacceptable. If he does not do this himself, state or public institutions do it for him. And this is censorship in the broadest sense of the word.

It is worth saying that in determining the motives of human behavior, works of art, as well as the media, play a significant role. With the help of these two most important factors, it is sometimes possible to completely change a person’s worldview, especially an unsettled one.

Censorship exists in any state, and this is perhaps the main tool for maintaining power in general. Another thing is the extent of these restrictions and what they want to achieve with their help.

The recent presidential race in the United States clearly showed how the authorities of this "cradle of democracy" know how to manipulate the media. By all indications, explicit and implicit, thanks to a mass information campaign, Hillary Clinton should have won. The most interesting thing is that the whole world thought so, and not only ordinary citizens, but also heads of state. Therefore, the victory of Donald Trump was a shock for many. And this is not because Trump is so-and-so, it’s just that the expectations were too different.

Thus, the US authorities launched a propaganda machine with might and main and let through not only inside the country, but also outside only that information that was pleasing to the current Obama administration and everyone who stands behind this administration.

Despite this pressure, Trump won by such a landslide margin (more than 25 percent) that no one even dared to argue. And if not for censorship, then, apparently, Trump would have inflicted a crushing defeat on the Democrats in general.

Why am I talking about this, you ask? What, your problems are few? No, not a lot. Just before shouting about the authoritarianism of the Russian government and nodding at Western democracy, it is worth remembering at least this past election campaign in the United States.

Of course, we have a different mentality, different values, and different prohibitions. But I want to say this. Any state striving to preserve itself as such is simply obliged to use such a method of limiting dissent as censorship. After all, the state is always a mechanism of suppression, an apparatus of violence against citizens, protecting the peace of some from the desire for permissiveness and destroying the foundations of the system by others. Here I do not mean the extreme confrontation between the authorities and ordinary citizens - the state most often has to protect people from other people.

There will be no enforcement of laws - there will be no state. And the weakness of our state is not in the weakness of the economy, but in the optional implementation of laws. If everyone was punished for crimes, regardless of personalities and positions, there would be more respect for the state, and the treasury would burst with income. And then only the pockets of some are breaking ...

It is worth saying that in Russia there was almost always censorship, and even such great ones as Derzhavin, Pushkin, Lermontov, Nekrasov, Mayakovsky, Bulgakov, Akhmatova, Tsvetaeva, Pasternak, Brodsky and others fell under its millstones.

But here's the paradox: the tougher the censorship, the more great names and great works. It sometimes seems to me that something meaningful and truly great can only be born out of opposition. And give a man freedom - and he will soon get bored with everything.

I remember, also a great one, Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky said: "Struggle is a condition of life, life dies when the struggle ends." Let's not talk about the broad and, in general, universal sense of this phrase - let's focus only on counteracting the existing foundations of representatives of literature and art and journalism.

Over the course of several centuries of censorship in Russia, hundreds of outstanding names, hundreds of great works have appeared. And after censorship almost came to naught in the 90s of the last century and until today, where are those writers, poets, artists, composers? Of course, they exist, but they no longer have their former influence on the hearts and souls of readers and viewers. Permitted mass freedom has robbed us of the greatness of the spirit.

A few days ago, the series "Mysterious Passion" about the sixties was shown on TV. Undoubtedly, this is a great cultural event, but not because famous actors play, and they play well (it is worth saying that many current series have a fairly high level of artistry and acting), but mainly because of the theme and nostalgia for those years.

The great era of the sixties is simply leaving, leaving irrevocably along with its representatives, of whom only Yevgeny Yevtushenko has survived, and even that has been too many years old. Rather, the series is a requiem for a bygone time and culture.

After the sixties and major authors, their peers, in Russia there was no longer great literature. You can, of course, name a couple of names - such as, for example, Lyudmila Ulitskaya, Denis Gutsko or Dmitry Bykov, but, unfortunately, few people know them now. And it's not because they write badly, it's just that readers and Russians in general are lost in this sudden surge of freedom. You can watch any movies, listen to any programs, read any works. Public life and public culture actually ceased to exist - an individualized consciousness came to replace it. Maybe this is good, but many norms, including moral ones, are being eroded. Therefore, Soviet censorship was, of course, a boon in this regard.

If we talk about censorship in a more familiar sense for us, then it exists in the person of Roskomnadzor, which is authorized to fine media outlets, restrict access to them, and revoke licenses. So, for example, propaganda of extremism and terrorism, obvious slander, attacks against the foundations of the existing system and other "offences" are punished in the most cruel way - not only by the closure of the media, but also by real prison terms for journalists.

A couple of weeks ago, for example, the well-known blogger and journalist Don Sergey Reznik was released from the colony. He spent several years in prison, and now he has been excommunicated from public journalism for several more years. I didn’t follow the specific reason for Reznik’s “landing”, however, his public attacks against many people and officials in the Rostov region, most often representatives of various levels of government, not only had no basis (it is the prerogative of the court to establish the guilt of one or another person), but were served in a clearly offensive form. What is unacceptable for a journalist and what actually broke his fate.

Alexander Tolmachev, the former editor of the Rostov newspaper "Authorized to declare", is still in prison. They say it's extortion. What I don't know, I don't know, I won't say. But the court had some grounds for making this decision! Well, I can’t believe that in our days just like that one time - and they planted a public person!

The journalist Dmitry Remizov also came under investigation several times - it seems that he is now working in the regional branch of Rosbalt. I do not presume to judge the reality of the reasons for the persecution, since the versions of law enforcement officers and the journalist are different.

In general, the majority of journalists, especially those who work in the municipal media, of course, have a well-developed self-censorship. If, of course, to dig, a talented journalist can always find nasty things that he can not only write about, but also greatly inflate them to incredible sizes. But why? Here, newspapermen are not so much afraid for their own fate as they proceed from the position of expediency: in order for power to be effective, it must be maintained, not shaken. And if there is a person in power who is worried about the fate of the village, city, district, region, country, journalists are simply obliged to give him all possible support. Well, if a rogue, then the journalists will not give up!

So, there must be censorship on the part of the state, which protects its foundations from destruction, and self-censorship. After all, if you give yourself free rein, before that you can agree! By the way, someone is fully aware of the limits of permissibility and sometimes very skillfully balances, which is why not only achieves his goals, but also gives rise to a high-quality information product. Others go ahead and often find themselves removed not only from the profession, but also from society.

But there is another type of censorship - religious. Moreover, it is individualistic-religious. This is the most terrible censorship, because not only condemnation, but also the degree of punishment depends on the interpretation here.

Some time ago, a dispute broke out over the next film by Alexei Uchitel "Matilda". The film itself had not yet been released, even the director had not edited it, but already a flurry of criticism fell upon Matilda.

The film is based on the story of the relationship between Nicholas II and Matilda Kshesinskaya. The fact that Tsarevich Nicholas fell in love with a ballerina in 1892-1894 is not disputed by anyone, and relations continued only until the engagement of the future emperor with Alice of Hesse (future Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna). How the director interpreted these relationships, we don’t really know - we can only guess from the trailer. But there has already been an extensive campaign against the film itself. Before the deputy Natalya Poklonskaya made a request to the Prosecutor General's Office regarding the verification of a film that had not yet been released (!) On the screens.

The reason is an insult to the feelings of believers. The first insult is that Nicholas, who was canonized not so long ago for martyrdom, should not be shown in such an unattractive light. And the second reason is that the director gave the role of the Russian saint to the German actor Lars Eidinger, who recently “lit up” in a pornographic film.

In this regard, Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev spoke wisely, commenting on the requests of some Orthodox activists to ban the film "Matilda". According to him, the main problem is that the search for a reason for personal insult has already formed a trend.

“This fashion – to look for a reason for one’s insult – already borders on psychiatric insanity,” the archdeacon complains. - When there is an installation, they say, let's find something to be offended by, then the bullet will find a hole. I cannot imagine what would have happened to the apostles of Christ if they had walked around the Roman Empire with such a mood. They would never leave court hearings, and even there they would have time to be offended by the sight of naked statues.

Kuraev admits that someone may have actually been offended by the film "Matilda", but even in this case, they have a simple way out: do not watch this film and pray.

“The most important thing is not to decide for other people that someone else should be insulted in the same way as I am,” Andrey Kuraev explains. “And then this feeling can be poured into a prayer, and not into a police lawsuit.”

This is precisely the main danger of this kind of censorship - to decide for other people.

Recently I watched a rather talented film by our fellow countryman Kirill Serebrennikov from Rostov, who now lives in Moscow and manages the former theater. N.V. Gogol, and now - the Gogol Center. This is the film The Apprentice. In May, he was even awarded one of the prizes at the Cannes Film Festival.

As for me, the picture is so talented, just as Russophobic, and also anti-Orthodox. It would be just right for her to be offended. Just, apparently, few people watched it here in Russia. But it's not that. The main thing in the film is the image of the hero, which shows the danger of religious fanaticism.

A high school student named Benjamin became intoxicated with the Word of the Bible and rejected his family, teachers, and classmates. In the story, a teenager becomes a religious fanatic and comes into conflict with a biology teacher at his school.

And the interpretation of the Word of God leads the teenager to the fact that he is already going to kill, on behalf of the Lord he decides who will live and who will die - for His glory.

This is the most terrible kind of censorship - the censorship of life. And religious fanaticism, be it Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or otherwise, today comes to the surface and begins to decide the fate of entire nations.

Today, extremists of all extremes are killing what they themselves, in their conviction, serve, betraying the original vocation of religious texts. They take upon themselves the responsibility to speak for God...

Igor Severny, "Week of our region"

____________________
Found an error or typo in the text above? Highlight the misspelled word or phrase and press Shift+Enter or .

Thank you very much for your help! We will fix this soon.

The social nature of censorship is determined by the fact that the nature of social relations and the conditions for the interaction of various public institutions, social strata, groups and individuals in society largely depend on the quality and volume of information circulating in society, which is interested in strengthening the stability of its existence and develops to achieve this goal. special means. Censorship, which directly regulates information flows, serves as one of the most important mechanisms for protecting society from entropy, protecting its political and moral foundations. It is able to prevent the spread of anomie in society, prevent excesses of extremism, chauvinism, racism, nationalism, anti-Semitism and other negative phenomena.

However, the role of censorship as a guarantor of a given vector of social development is ambiguous. There comes a time when society begins to show the need to make changes to previously habitual relations, which is possible only if a strong innovative impulse arrives. In this case, censorship can be a serious obstacle to these changes, if it "in its own way" interprets the real and imaginary novelty. Consequently, according to its decisions, one can judge the degree of readiness of the controlling authority, subordinate to the managerial elite, to perceive the new, to correct the chosen direction of movement under given historical circumstances.

Censorship is a product of a society that needs restraining principles, tools to prevent the destruction of its organism. It is a kind of example of the action of the instinct of self-preservation in a society that seeks to limit the deviations of its members. By selecting information on the basis of samples and norms accepted in a given society, censorship issues a verdict on the degree of its compliance with the social framework established for people living in it, and thereby predetermines the public perception of this or that fact. Thus, it participates in the formation of value orientations. But there is also a serious danger hidden in this, since the pressure of censorship can lead to the conservation of obsolete social institutions.

The action of censorship is carried out partly publicly, partly latently and depends on the state of society and its culture. Being an artificial subsystem, censorship serves to strengthen "parental" systems, but under certain conditions it is able to "autonomize" from true social needs and go into the "self-generation" mode, that is, to the search and destruction of "enemies", which inevitably begins to lead to the self-destruction of all socio-cultural organism. So, censorship, on the one hand, is able to protect culture, and on the other hand, it can weaken it, blocking the path of cultural-creative currents.

The mode of functioning of censorship is directly related to the deployment of two trends: to differentiation and integration in the space of a single and dynamic field of culture. This is due to the fact that in society there is always a desire to streamline the processes of interaction between its various cultures and subcultures. So, it is important to take into account the degree of dependence of the sociodynamics of culture on censorship, since it is with censorship that a certain order of functioning of a heterogeneous culture in society is associated.

If a "closed" society is formed, then sociality, based on the positions of a misunderstood public good, dominates, and censorship is alienated from cultural tradition, works against it and, ultimately, against society itself. If censorship normally operates in a civilized society, strictly observing the established rules and norms, and successfully satisfies its needs for the protection of fundamental human values, then both principles are harmoniously combined in it: social and cultural.

Power as a prerequisite, a condition for the emergence and development of censorship, ensures the fulfillment of its main functions:

1) the control function, which consists in the systematic tracking, evaluation, classification and selection of social information in accordance with the accepted norms for its production and circulation;

2) regulatory functions, aimed at defining criteria and establishing the procedure for the circulation of information through the preparation of recommendations, instructions, instructions, comments, prohibitions, etc.;

3) a protective function that allows keeping secret state, military and other secrets;

4) a repressive function aimed at punishing those guilty of violating the rules of censorship;

5) manipulative function, expressed in the fact that censorship, regulating the flow of information, in a certain way affects the perception of facts and decision-making;

6) a preventive function designed to prevent conflict situations;

7) a sanctioning function that ensures the passage of two types of information into the social space: primordial, unchanged, and distorted, adapted by censorship;

8) a standardizing function, which is the fixation and consolidation of certain samples in the sociocultural continuum (works of art, artistic trends and styles, scientific theories, etc.);

9) the function of stimulating public interest, which causes an increase and awakening of attention to inaccessible information on the part of the uninitiated.

In addition to the listed functions, censorship also performs a number of related ones: regulatory, communicative, translational, etc. Their vast majority (with the exception of manipulative), if they do not go into "their other", has a positive orientation. But, contrary to its nature, censorship is often used by various social actors to the detriment of society and culture.

Here are some generalized characteristics of censorship as a social institution in our time:

a) the scope of its activities is primarily related to social information;

b) there are special censorship institutions. These are various state bodies (ministries, departments, etc.), public organizations (foundations, associations, commissions, committees, party bodies, etc.), religious institutions (synod, administrations and councils for the supervision of literature of theological content, etc.). ) and a certain group of officials - censors who perform the relevant functions (in some cases, their duties are transferred to editors, experts, consultants, etc.);

c) the norms and principles of its activity are set by the legal acts of the state, service instructions, charters of public organizations, moral criteria accepted in society;

d) the material means used by censorship include special equipment necessary for viewing and storing photographic, film and television materials, listening to radio broadcasts and tape recordings, reading letters, etc.

According to the correct remark of E. Durkheim, there is no institution that would not degenerate at a certain moment. In the case of censorship, this statement is true, but only in individual cases.

An analogue of censorship at the ordinary level can be considered public opinion, which is based on authority and traditions. By tabooing certain topics (and even words), it ensures that the discussion proceeds within certain limits. Of course, official censorship often diverges in its assessments from public opinion (for example, in our recent past, this concerned the work of V. S. Vysotsky). Literary and artistic criticism, under certain conditions, is also able to take on the functions of censorship. Merging into its system, it begins to perform not only the mission of a controller, regulator, creator of a standard, but also a "scammer" pointing out "harmful" works to the authorities.

The diversity of its subjects is reflected in traditional and modern censorship institutions. All of them can be considered as subjects-performers ("censors"). We can also single out one more category - "customers", that is, subjects who more or less actively support the activities of "censors", but do not directly participate in it. These can be both individuals and certain social groups and organizations that are aware of the need to protect their own interests and principles with the help of this kind of means. To do this, they involve "censors" and, as a rule, seek to substantiate their claims by subsuming legal regulators under them. Sometimes this is done post factum (as an example, it suffices to refer to the episode when the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation filed claims against the NTV television company in connection with the Kukly program). The division of subjects of censorship into "performers" and "customers" according to such criteria turns out to be relative, and sometimes some "customers" simultaneously act as "performers". In addition, the diversity of interests of various subjects inevitably leads to contradictions between them. Thus, situations are even possible when there is a contradiction between the interests of the authorities and society and the momentary needs of a particular censorship institution and its employees.

Constitutional prohibitions against censorship should be respected only in relation to the emergence of institutions of a certain type, but not to abolish censorship in principle.

Modern technologies make significant adjustments to the work of censorship. Xerox, personal computers and other technical achievements of the late 20th century led to the decentralization of the system of production and dissemination of information. As the Canadian sociologist M. McLuhan noted, an ordinary person, if desired, now turned from a consumer into a publisher. The new "screen" culture posed before the censorship questions that had no analogues in the past: this is the problem of protecting data banks of state and non-state structures from their illegal use, and the fight against "software piracy", and much more. Finding answers to them is not easy, but it is vital for the world community.

Thus, censorship has real prospects. Politics decisively affects only its specific use by certain social actors. The future belongs to flexible censorship, which operates within the framework of the rule of law and is supplemented by the voluntary participation of broad sections of society in it.

In our age of high technology, the problem of censorship in the global computer network Internet is really relevant. Millions of people around the world use the Internet every day to communicate with each other or to search for the information they need. The Internet is now available to almost everyone - it is used by adults and children, representatives of the middle class and people with high incomes. Thus the influence of the Internet on the minds of millions of people around the world is evident. The question of the need for censorship in the virtual space has been raised repeatedly. In addition to interesting and important information, the Internet is replete with all sorts of spam, malware, and pornographic material, which suggests the need for censorship. At the same time, censorship in itself is a restriction of freedom of speech, which, according to the legislation of many countries of the world (including the “Constitution of the Russian Federation”), is considered unacceptable. So is there a need for censorship in the virtual space?

To answer this question, you need to understand what Internet censorship is as such.

So, Internet censorship is the control or prohibition of materials that anyone can publish on the Internet or download from it. Internet censorship has the same legal basis as print censorship. Its main difference lies in the fact that the national boundaries of the Web are blurred: residents of a country in which this or that information is prohibited (if it is not filtered) can find it on websites located on servers in other countries. It is very difficult to fully censor the Internet due to the very nature of the Global Web. The use of pseudonyms and the presence on the Internet of the so-called data havens (Data havens) do not allow one hundred percent to identify the ownership (authorship) of the content and physically delete it.

Despite the difficulty of filtering the Internet, Internet censorship is in place in many countries. Dozens of companies produce products that selectively block websites. Developers do not like to use the word "censorship" in their product names, preferring terms without negative connotations, such as Internet filters.
Nevertheless, the objective reality is that, to date, adequate laws that would regulate the Internet have not yet been adopted. The Internet as a social phenomenon has long been a topic for discussion by legislators around the world, but it can be said with confidence that today there is no censorship of the Internet as such.

Of course, there is such a thing as "content filtering" - a technology that filters out pornography, viruses and spam, but this technology has many opponents. So, is Internet Filtering good or bad? As always, there are different opinions on this matter. Indeed, it is not easy to give a definite answer to this question. On the one hand, the degree of filtration and the filtration profile can be different, on the other hand, the answer to this question lies partly in the ideological plane, so everyone can answer it based on their own preferences and beliefs.

Well, as you know, "one's own censorship is the protection of society, someone else's is a ban on freedom." But I still think that censorship on the Internet is necessary. There are too many viruses, malware, spam and morally dubious materials on the Global Web. And we are talking not so much about freedom of speech, but about observance of elementary norms of morality. Without a doubt, the Internet should be free, but it should not be malicious and immoral.