Moscow Times (http://www.moscowtimes.ru)

February 10, 1998

WEB WATCH: Bill Threatens Internet Freedom

By Bill Fick

Despite ambivalence on the part of many state security organs, the Russian Internet has so far largely escaped onerous government regulations that might stifle its development. But Russian netizens beware, a new law on sredstva massovoi informatsii, or mass media, under discussion in the State Duma, could place a huge roadblock in the path of Russia's fledgling web publishers, from individuals with personal home pages to large corporations blazing the trails of electronic commerce. (for a comparative copy of the old and new laws, see http://www.cityline.ru/politika/media/zsmi5p1.html).

A series of proposed amendments to the legislation (http://www.cityline.ru/politika/media/zpsmi1.html) specifies that "computerized information" and "messages and materials distributed via computer networks" shall be included in the definition of "mass media." It's hard to argue with the logic: after all, what form of media could be more massive than the Internet, which makes information available to millions of people throughout the world?

However, the registration requirements which follow from "mass media" status under the proposed law appear burdensome and would surely handicap the Russian web. Only legal entities or physical persons registered as private entrepreneurs may publish "mass media," while persons under 18 years of age, foreigners and legal entities with more than 10 percent foreign ownership or 30 percent foreign staff are specifically excluded.

Suddenly, thousands of individuals with personal home pages and companies with advertising sites and newsletters could find themselves required to go through the same registration process as the owners of a television station or newspaper, which involves a complex bureaucratic procedure and a fee of 50 minimum wages, or about $1,000. Only print publications with circulations of less than 1,000 enjoy exemption.

Internet service providers that offer virtual web hosting services might have the financial and organizational interest and means to register, but they would be loathe to blanket their customers in their own license and thus accept responsibility for the content of client web pages.

The transparent and transnational nature of the web highlights the absurdity of such attempts at regulation. If enforced on the Russian Internet, the law would probably just drive Russian web sites offshore to web "server farms" in the United States and Europe that offer wholesale site hosting services. Download speeds over clogged international channels might be slower, but unregistered sites would not be pinched into oblivion. While Article 54 of the law requires that all foreign mass media receive explicit permission for "distribution" of their products in Russia, I hardly expect that webmasters from Antigua to Zimbabwe will rush to Goskompechat for their permission slips, and wholesale "blocking" of foreign Internet sites on a larger scale than what China has tried seems unlikely here even in worst-case scenarios.

The government might still try to take measures against individuals physically located in Russia who create information published on offshore sites, but it would be unable simply to "pull the plug" or otherwise block distribution.

Other provisions of the new law on mass media and Russian libel precedents are also problematic and may have a chilling effect on free expression (see, for example, http://www.npi.ru/RAPIC/legis/discuss.htm), but this is beyond the purview of today's column. In principle, I would agree that web publishers should bear responsibility for their words similar to that borne by traditional media.

But the low cost and accessibility of Internet publishing make it different from expensive printing operations and broadcasts that use limited frequency spectrum, which require state regulation and anti-monopoly protection.

Thus far, reaction to the proposed rules has been muted, with some online discussion in the National Press Institute's cyberjournalism mailing list (http://www.npi.ru/RAPIC/diary/cybj.htm) and a forum at http://www.ipclub.ru/cgi-bin/free-gb-view.cgi?owner=486.Disturbingly, most of the correspondents seem content to hope that personal home pages will be permitted, without addressing the more troubling "prior restraint" the law would effectively place on web pages published by legal entities that are not newspapers, television stations, etc.

One concerned Russian netizen, Grigory Belonuchkin, has devoted a special web page to the new law (http://www.cityline.ru/politika/media/media.html) and reports that Duma Deputy Yury Nestorov of the Yabloko fraction has offered to make an amendment to address concerns about the Internet after considering public input and "foreign experience."

My advice to Deputy Nestorov: simply exempt "computerized information" from registration requirements entirely, while acknowledging its unique status as mass media.

In his ringing rejection of government attempts to censor Internet content, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens eloquently described the uniquely democratic and accessible nature of Internet publishing: "Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox," he wrote. "Through use of the web pages, mail exploders, and news groups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer."

It would be a shame to see Russia drive cyber samizdat underground or into the hands of the powerful oligarchies that already control so much of the nation's media.

Bill Fick welcomes any tips on interesting web sites or questions concerning the Internet for response in future editions of this column. Fick is co-founder of Samovar Internet Consulting, LLC. Web: http://www.samovar.ru e-mail: bill@samovar.ru fax: 953-2261

______________________

Johnson's Russia List

#2055

10 February 1998

davidjohnson@erols.com