MEDIA RIGHT SYSTEM IN RUSSIA

Federal media law. Russia has a legal system based on the Constitution and officially published laws. By type, it refers to continental law - as opposed to case law, where decisions are based not on written, as it were, predetermined norms, but on similar cases from the former judicial-legal practice. The case law of social life is accepted, for example, in Great Britain, and the United States largely falls under this definition. Constitutional legislation is widespread in European countries (hence the "continental").

In the mass informational area, there is a hierarchy of regulatory documents common to the entire legal system. The fundamental principles of legislation on the media are contained in the Constitution of the Russian Federation : freedom of thought and speech, a ban on anti-human propaganda in its various manifestations, unimpeded movement of information, a ban on censorship (article 29), ideological pluralism (article 13), privacy 23 and 24), freedom of creativity (Art. 44) and others.

We note in particular that the Constitution includes generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of Russia in the national legal system, and moreover, they are prioritized over domestic legislation (Article 15). The right of a citizen to apply to interstate bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms is also provided for. This means that the imperfection of Russian laws or their arbitrary interpretation, directed against civilized forms of information exchange, are compensated by the efforts of the world community to assert natural rights and freedoms. Our country is no exception. For example, other states that have joined the Council of Europe are in the same position. Their domestic law and enforcement practices should be adjusted in accordance with the standards of this organization. The European Court of Human Rights has recently set a precedent, the knowledge of which is also useful for our compatriots. He issued an acquittal in the case of a British reporter convicted in his homeland for refusing to disclose a confidential source of information.

The detailing and development of the provisions of the Constitution are contained in special legislation (which, of course, should not contradict it, like all other regulatory documents). The central place in the legislation on mass media is occupied by the Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media”. For the sake of justice, I must say that this is not the first document in national history that regulates mass information activities. In this regard, historians draw attention to the Decree of Peter I on the publication of the newspaper Vedomosti, the detailed censorship legislation of tsarist Russia, the Decree on the Press, signed by V.I. Lenin, and later regulations. The immediate predecessor of the current Law was the USSR Law “On the Press and Other Mass Media”, adopted in 1990. [5] Already it reflected most of the connections and relationships that arise in the current Russian press.

The Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media” protects editorial boards from coercive influence from outside and interference in the production process, describes the mechanisms of interaction of editorial offices with the state, founders and publishers, information sources and citizens, guarantees the journalist protection of his honor, dignity, health, life and property gives him personal independence in creative and civil relations, formulates the rights and duties of a journalist. The document has stood the test of time, it creates the required conditions for effective journalistic activities. However, some additions to the text were already made in 1995, and it is likely that there will be new clarifications prompted by work experience.

The law has withstood another, even more imposing load - already as a supporting element of the complex construction of legal acts and regulations. Today, a whole family of laws on the press has been formed - not ideally complete in terms of its composition and internal interrelationships, but still it is much more reliable to provide for the needs of both society and journalism itself than it was just recently.

The structure of sectoral law includes federal documents , one way or another affecting the sphere of mass information. Let's name the most notable among them: “On state secrets” (1993), “On basic guarantees of electoral rights of citizens of the Russian Federation” (1994), “On information, informatization and protection of information” (1995), “On advertising” (1995), Civil and Criminal Codes, etc. Gradually, the practice of harmonizing various legal provisions is being formed, without which it is impossible to achieve the implementation of each of them. Separate norms that are succinctly presented in the Law “On Mass Media” receive detailed interpretation in special legal acts. Thus, a short mention of the obligation of the media to send free copies of publications to libraries and other repositories is, as it were, deployed in the Law "On Mandatory Copies of Documents." Article 42 (“Copyright Works and Letters”) is supported by the action of the deeply detailed Law “On Copyright and Related Rights”, etc.

The fate of the Law “On State Support of the Mass Media and Publishing of the Russian Federation” (1995) can be seen as the development of a package of complementary provisions gives real strength to a new document. The law provides for the introduction of a number of economic benefits for the media in order to create equal conditions for all for approval in the market and successful operation. Accordingly, it was necessary to make additions and changes to such documents that are far from journalism at first glance, such as the laws “On Value Added Tax”, “On Tax on Profits of Enterprises and Organizations”, “On Customs Tariff”. Then the struggle for the inclusion in the state budget of expenditures on providing declared benefits was developed, then special departmental instructions were required (for example, for customs services), without which decisions of the highest state bodies would not be executed at workplaces.

By-laws and regional legislation. The regulatory framework of the media is not represented solely by federal laws. It includes by-laws of the executive authorities at the all-Russian level : decrees, government decrees, orders of ministries, etc. It also includes the legislation of the subjects of the Federation ( regional legislation ) and by-laws of the authorities in the regions. Below are the vertical regulations of local governments (in cities, districts, rural settlements) and administrative orders and orders in organizations (for example, labor regulations in the wording).

This regulatory mechanism may seem unnecessarily multi-stage and complex. But, first of all, this is the single governance mechanism in the country for all branches of life. Secondly, there are strict principles on which the interaction of regulatory documents is based. All of them are published on the basis of and pursuant to federal laws and, naturally, should not contradict them. In addition, each governing body adopts a normative provision only within its competence: the ministry in its own branch of the economy, the legislative assembly of the region in the region, and the chief editor in its newspaper. Therefore, ideally, the system should act smoothly and according to generally understood rules.

The subjects of the Federation enjoy their right to develop regulatory documents - in the status of a law or a decree of an executive body. The economic support of the regional authorities favorably affects the material situation of the media. In many republics and regions, decisions have been taken on press privileges - for example, in the form of a reduction in rent and taxes paid to the regional budget. This order does not contradict the spirit and letter of Russian laws. On the other hand, as observations show (here we turn to the journal “Legislation and Practice of the Mass Media”), it is not uncommon to see a divergence of regional and federal legislation. Known typical "pain points" in their relationships. Thus, in a number of cases, regional authorities are strengthening their control over the activities of the media, especially television, limiting the ability to criticize local ruling elites, and arbitrary and amateurish definitions of concepts that have not yet received a deep theoretical and legal interpretation at the national level. Federal legal oversight bodies identify such facts and seek to eliminate them. But this is a long procedure; practicing journalists usually do not have the opportunity to wait for the outcome of the center and province disputes over the distribution of competence. The lack of coordination between the subjects of power prevents the implementation of very specific editorial plans and assignments. This means that there is a need for a special service that would promptly find errors and correct them with authoritative means.

Particularly often departmental and administrative documents come into conflict with the laws. This is not surprising if we recall that there are a great many governing bodies, and that private, far from state interests interfere in their attitude to publicity. Meanwhile, when collecting information, a journalist in most cases deals with people for whom the supreme law is the order of the immediate superior. In particular, the bitter and instructive lessons were learned from the military events in Chechnya (1994-1995).

Formally, neither martial law or state of emergency was declared in this republic, which would imply a substantial restriction of the rights and freedoms of a person and a journalist as well. Consequently, in the course of an armed conflict the norms of peacetime were to fully operate. The Law “On the Interior Troops of the Ministry of the Interior”, which provides for the restriction of access to information about the actions of the troops, does not exceed in force the Law “On the Mass Media”. It means that journalists had the right to move freely throughout the territory of Chechnya, including battle sites, to keep records and filming of military facilities without special permits, without fear of sanctions (use of physical force, opening fire, removal of materials, detention, etc.). Such logic is good and acceptable in legal disputes. But the reality in the field of fighting refuted it. As emphasized during the discussion “The Chechen trap: Did the press get into it?” (1995), the soldiers were guided by the Memo to the soldier who was performing the task of restoring law and order in the territory of the Chechen Republic. According to the Memo, it was forbidden for military personnel to communicate with any civilians, they were ordered to detain suspects, and communication with journalists was allowed only with the permission of the direct commanders [6].

From the analysis of the considered collision, every journalist should make a conclusion regarding the methodology of his professional behavior. For self-preservation purposes, it is necessary to develop the skills of pragmatic handling of information legislation. A reporter who rises to his full height under fire or with a notebook in his hands “attacks” an aggressively tuned machine gunner, hiding behind the Law “On Mass Media”, behaves not professionally. It is more reasonable to apply to real circumstances, postponing the legal dispute to a safer minute.

Here we return to the notion of a journalist’s legal culture, one of the effects of which is his personal safety. Free orientation in the “corridors” of the normative pyramid, the willingness to plastically fit into the specific conditions of activity is just the key to security. This also applies to the relationship with the administration of its media, including the knowledge and use of labor law. Any editorial staff should be well versed in the following issues: the conclusion of an employment contract, rationing of working time, rest and production, payroll, discipline and sanctions for its violation, labor protection and labor disputes. The study of this topic shows that in the editorial offices labor law is studied and applied depressingly poorly, both from the administration and from the workers [7].