Russian lawmakers pass a bill punishing online searches for information deemed to be 'extremist'
The bill passed by the lower house, the State Duma, moves to its all-but-certain endorsement in the upper house and then goes to President Vladimir Putin to be signed into law.
The legislation punishes what it describes as 'deliberately searching for and accessing extremist materials' online. First-time offenders face a fine of up to the equivalent of $64.
The official definition of extremist activity is extremely broad and includes opposition groups like the Anti-Corruption Foundation, created by the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny, and the 'international LGBT movement.'
It's not clear how authorities will track down violators. Some observers have suggested the information would likely come from internet providers or social media platforms, and police also could randomly check the search history of cellphones or computers.
The new legislation also contained a ban on advertising of virtual private network services, but stopped short of banning their use. It did list the use of a VPN as an 'aggravating circumstance' in case of other violations of the law.
The Russian authorities have ramped their multipronged crackdown on dissent after sending troops into Ukraine in February 2022.
Since then, online censorship and prosecutions for social media posts and comments have soared. Multiple independent news outlets and rights groups have been shut down, labeled as 'foreign agents' or outlawed as 'undesirable.' Hundreds of activists and critics of the Kremlin have faced criminal charges.
The new legislation has sparked broad public criticism.
Liberal politician Boris Nadezhdin, who sought to challenge Putin in last year's presidential election but was denied a spot on the ballot, told reporters outside the State Duma that he opposed the new legislation. Nadezhdin's aide, Dmitry Kisiev, who picketed the parliament building with a poster likening the legislation to the world of George Orwell's dystopian '1984,' was quickly rounded up by police, who also detained several reporters covering the protest.
Even some pro-Kremlin figures have criticized the bill, arguing it would make it impossible for them to track down and deflect comments by Kremlin critics.
Yekaterina Mizulina, whose group Safe Internet League has frequently reported dissenters to authorities, has strongly condemned the new bill, arguing it would make it impossible for her group to monitor 'extremist communities' on the web.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Targeting Obama, Trump's retribution campaign takes another turn
Displaying a willingness to weaponize the federal government in ways that were as novel as they were audacious, he took on a wide variety of individuals and institutions — from law firms and universities to journalists and federal bureaucrats — that he felt had crossed him, failed to fall in line or embodied ideological values that he rejected. Advertisement But on Tuesday, Trump reverted to earlier form, resurfacing — in a remarkably unfiltered and aggressive rant — his grievances against Obama, prominent figures in past administrations and others he associated with what he considers a long campaign of persecution dating back to the 2016 election. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Seeking to change the topic at a time when he is under bipartisan political pressure over his unwillingness to do more to release investigative files into Jeffrey Epstein, he said the time had come for his opponents to face criminal charges. President Trump on DNI report on 2016 Russian interference claims: "The leader of the gang was President Obama. Barack Hussein Obama, have you heard of him?...He's guilty. It's not a question. You know, I like to say let's give it time. It's there. He's guilty. This was treason." — CSPAN (@cspan) 'I let her off the hook, and I'm very happy I did, but it's time to start after what they did to me,' Trump said of Hillary Clinton, adding: 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' Advertisement 'He's guilty,' he added. 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' But if his enemies list was familiar, his capacity to pursue retribution appears to be expanding. Repeatedly in his first term, Trump accused his perceived enemies of treason and tried to push the FBI and Justice Department to indict them. He told his chief of staff that he wanted to 'get the IRS' on those who crossed him. Many of them were investigated, and two of them were the subjects of highly unusual and invasive audits, but none of them were ever charged. The difference now is that Trump, much more so than during his first term, is surrounded by aides and Cabinet members who often appear willing to follow through on his angriest and most authoritarian impulses. The Justice Department, whose top ranks are populated by loyalists, including two of his own lawyers, has shown a willingness to carry out Trump's personal agenda. The department has dismissed prosecutors involved not just in the criminal cases brought against him two years ago by a special counsel but also those who pursued Jan. 6 rioters. The department also dropped a prosecution against New York City's mayor after he agreed to help Trump on immigration issues. And the administration also targeted first-term officials who became public critics of Trump, like Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. But now the efforts to target top officials from previous administrations appears to be gaining momentum. The intelligence community under Trump is engaged in a campaign seeking to show that Obama and his aides wrongly sought to tie Trump to Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor -- and that some of Obama's officials and perhaps Obama himself should be held criminally liable. Advertisement John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, conducted a review that was deeply critical of the Obama administration and former CIA director John Brennan. Ratcliffe wrote on social media that the review had shown that the process was corrupt and then he made a criminal referral to the FBI. Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, issued another report last week including documents that she asserted showed that there was a 'treasonous conspiracy' in 2016 by the Obama administration to harm Trump. On Wednesday, Gabbard released more material: a 2017 House Intelligence Committee report that took issue with elements of the Obama administration's assessment. Those House findings were at odds with a bipartisan series of Senate reports that later affirmed the work of the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. The Trump administration reports have so far provided little or no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama or his aides, but Sunday, Trump posted a fake video of Obama being apprehended by FBI agents in the Oval Office. It is not yet clear whether even a compliant Justice Department will be willing to open criminal investigations into Obama or other prominent Democrats and Trump critics, or be able to find grounds to do so. Even if prosecutors lodged charges, prosecutions could be difficult. Obama, like Trump, presumably enjoys immunity from prosecution for any official acts while in office, based on the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity ruling last year. But Trump often seems intent on using the federal government to subject his foes to the same kinds of scrutiny he has undergone. Advertisement Infuriated by what he has sought to characterize as 'witch hunt' investigations and legal proceedings against him that started with the investigation into the 2016 election and morphed into the obstruction-of-justice investigation into him, he has levied crippling executive orders against law firms that had even fleeting connections to those episodes. That process has pressured many of the firms into committing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work to causes he favors. Casting universities as breeding grounds for antisemitism and a brand of woke liberalism that he feels has opposed and denigrated him at every turn, his administration made an example of Harvard, using a whole-of-government approach to demand major changes. He pelted Harvard with major cuts to its research funding, tried to take visas away from its international students and launched a series of invasive and onerous investigations into the school. Harvard is now negotiating a settlement with the White House, but the administration kept up the pressure by informing the school of a new investigation Wednesday. He took an ax to what he saw as pockets of 'deep state' resistance inside his own government. He has sought to cow news organizations, barring The Associated Press from the White House press pool, extracting big financial settlements from the owners of ABC and CBS in disputes over their coverage, and filing suit against The Wall Street Journal for its reporting on his ties to Epstein. But, as his own supporters acknowledge, none of that is as important as putting one of his perceived enemies behind bars. 'If you tell the base of people, who support you, of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail, and rich powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every enemy of The People,' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posted Sunday. 'If not. The base will turn and there's no going back. Dangling bits of red meat no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and will accept nothing else.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in .
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
'We Saw Trafficking Like We've Never Seen:' Kristi Noem on Anti-Human Trafficking Efforts
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and several other republican officials, lawmakers spoke Wednesday at the Anti-Human Trafficking Summit at the 2025 CPAC event in Washington, D.C.
New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has contended that the intelligence work in 2016 was not only flawed but also amounted to a conspiracy against President Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, released a document on Wednesday that she said undermined the conclusion of intelligence agencies during the Obama administration that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016. The document was a report that the House Intelligence Committee originally drafted in 2017, when Republicans led the panel. The report took issue with the conclusion reached in December 2016 that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had favored Mr. Trump. The new material provides some interesting insights into the development of the review of Russian activity by American spy agencies, and the debate over their assessment. But none of the new information changes the fundamental view that Russia meddled in the election and that Mr. Putin hoped to damage Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. On Sunday, Ms. Gabbard promised to refer the details of her findings to the Justice Department. And on Wednesday, she said in a social media post that Mr. Trump had ordered the declassification of the report and that the information showed the 'most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.' The Obama administration, Ms. Gabbard wrote, was 'promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' Ms. Gabbard has won praise from Mr. Trump for her investigation into the intelligence findings and spoke at length about how the 2016 assessment was part of a witch hunt against him. The president has been under sharp criticism for his handling of documents related to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, and his attacks on the Obama administration appear to be part of a distract-and-deflect strategy. Ms. Gabbard reiterated her assertion that the intelligence assessment was intended to undermine Mr. Trump's presidency. 'In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people,' she wrote, 'working with their partners in the media to promote the lie, in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him.' The report was released with relatively few redactions, prompting criticism from Democrats. 'Given the rushed and unusual 'declassification' process the D.N.I. has implemented, I fear that the public release of this report could compromise sensitive sources and methods and endanger our national security,' said Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, referring to the director of national intelligence. Officials familiar with the matter said that another, more heavily redacted version took care to hide more information about U.S. sources and had been considered for release. Ms. Gabbard said on social media that Mr. Trump had declassified the report. Kash Patel, now Mr. Trump's F.B.I. director, was a key author of the report released on Wednesday, according to officials. Only Republicans on the committee participated in the drafting of the 2017 report and revisions in 2020. The House report found that most of the judgments made by the intelligence community in 2016 were sound. But it argued that the work was rushed, as a recent tradecraft analysis by the C.I.A. also found. The assessment that Mr. Putin had favored Mr. Trump did not follow the 'professional criteria' of the other findings, the House report said. The findings were at odds with a bipartisan series of Senate reports from a committee that included Marco Rubio, then a Republican senator from Florida and now Mr. Trump's secretary of state. The Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed the work of the C.I.A. and the other intelligence agencies on the 2016 assessment. The judgment about Mr. Putin's preference, the House report said, was based on a single source who was biased against the Russian government. The raw intelligence was fragmentary and lacked context, the report added. The detailed discussion of the source has not been made public before, although the U.S. decision to extract and relocate him, first to Virginia, has become public. Russia officials made the source's identity public and said he was an aide to a senior Russian official. The 2017 report portrays the information as incomplete and subject to interpretation, pointing to a single piece of intelligence from the man that said Mr. Putin had decided to leak emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee because Mrs. Clinton had better odds of the election and Mr. Trump, 'whose victory Putin was counting, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.' But current and former American officials pushed back on the characterization of the source's intelligence, saying he was well placed and had provided sound information to the United States on Mr. Putin's intentions. While details about the debate over the source are new, the overall view of the House Intelligence Committee was well known, and members frequently took issue with the finding. But the full report with details of the C.I.A.'s work on the 2016 intelligence assessment has not been released. Attacking the conclusions of the 2016 assessment that Russia sought to denigrate Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump has been a hobby horse of some of the president's supporters. Republicans have long taken particular aim at the idea that the Kremlin favored Mr. Trump, arguing instead that Russia was simply trying to sow chaos or undermine democratic institutions. The attacks on the documents have intensified in recent weeks as first the C.I.A. and then Ms. Gabbard's office have raised questions about the effort. Bipartisan Senate reviews have validated the C.I.A.'s work in 2016, and John H. Durham, a special prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr during Mr. Trump's first term, also failed to find any evidence undermining the intelligence agencies' conclusions. While Mr. Trump's Republican supporters criticized the assessment during his first term, the president focused much of his ire on Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director appointed to investigate any ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. The newly released House document also takes a close look at the role that a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, played in the 2016 assessment. Trump administration officials have maintained that the 2016 intelligence review was tainted by unverified information in the so-called Steele dossier. A classified annex to the report mentioned the dossier, but former officials said the C.I.A. did not take it seriously and did not allow it to influence their assessment. Few if any of the claims in Mr. Steele's work about Mr. Trump have been verified in the ensuing years. In interviews this week, former officials insisted the Steele dossier did not influence the findings of the 2016 assessment. But the House report took issue with that, noting that in one of the bullet points in the original, classified version, the assessment referred readers to the annex discussing the dossier. The House report said the two-page annex summarizing the dossier 'misrepresented the significance and credibility' of Mr. Steele's work. The dossier 'was written in an amateurish conspiracy and political propaganda tone that invited skepticism, if not ridicule, over its content,' the report continued. The House review also said one C.I.A. officer said he confronted John O. Brennan, the agency's director at the time, with the flaws of the dossier. Mr. Brennan, according to the House report, acknowledged the flaws but added, 'doesn't it ring true.' Mr. Brennan, who emerged as one of the sharpest critics of Mr. Trump, has long denied that the dossier colored the assessment and said that he backed C.I.A. officers who wanted it kept out of the main body. He has said he placed the dossier in the annex at the insistence of the F.B.I. Former Obama administration officials acknowledged in hindsight that including the unverified dossier in the annex was a mistake, given the justifiable criticisms Republicans had of Mr. Steele's assertions. But the officials said the F.B.I. felt it had no choice but to include it in the annex to avoid appearing as if they were hiding something from Mr. Trump. C.I.A. officials wanted to be sure the F.B.I. signed on to the overall assessments, and they felt that the bureau would do that only if the annex was included, former officials said. The existence of the dossier was initially exposed by CNN, and then Buzzfeed published its contents. Since Mr. Trump's return to office, the C.I.A. and Ms. Gabbard have tried to sow doubts about the assessment. Ms. Gabbard has contended that the intelligence work in 2016 was not just flawed but also amounted to a conspiracy against Mr. Trump. On Friday, Ms. Gabbard issued a report that she said exposed a 'treasonous conspiracy,' claiming senior Obama administration officials had pressured the intelligence committee to change its views on Russian meddling. The documents presented showed that the Obama administration was eager to quickly complete its work but not that the intelligence agencies were altering their conclusions. Mr. Trump has praised Ms. Gabbard, after criticizing her work just weeks earlier. Referring to Ms. Gabbard's report, Mr. Trump said on Tuesday that while in office, President Barack Obama 'was trying to lead a coup.' Ms. Gabbard has said she wants to end the weaponization of intelligence. She has condemned politicians for what she sees as the use of selective bits of intelligence against their opponents. While she has portrayed the release of the documents as a corrective to the errors and missteps of the Obama administration, former officials and even some allies of Ms. Gabbard have said her effort to throw a lifeline to Mr. Trump is an example of the very politicization she has vowed to stamp out.
