Russian Government Hits Last Independent News Outlet With A $338,000 Fine
from the death-by-338,000-cuts dept
The Russian government took another consolidation-of-power step recently. Deciding to exercise a 2012 law written specifically to give it leverage against independent press outlets, a Moscow court has hit the country's last remaining opposition magazine with a massive fine.
The Committee to Protect Journalists today condemned an exorbitant fine imposed on the independent news outlet The New Times. A Moscow court on October 26 ordered the outlet to pay 22.3 million rubles (US$338,000) for failing to provide financial information under Russia's "foreign agents" law and ordered the outlet's editor-in-chief Yevgenia Albats to pay an additional fine of 30,000 rubles, TV Dozhd reported.
Albats suspects this fine is the result of an October 22nd interview with opposition politician and vocal Putin critic Aleksei Nalvany. The hefty fine should result in the closure of The New Times, which would be exactly what the Russian government wants.
The law used to effectively push the magazine into bankruptcy went live in 2012. It requires all non-government operations that receive foreign funding to register as "foreign agents." This law was upgraded last year in response to a new US policy requiring similar "foreign agent" registration for Russian state-run news outlets. This newer twist allows for direct targeting of press outlets. But, even without this addition, the Russian government still could have crippled The New Times. As Agence France-Presse reports, part of The New Times' funding involves donations collected by a registered charity.
With this move, Russian citizens will now be limited to state-run publications. The internet will still provide opportunities for Russians to read news not controlled by the state, but those too will eventually dry up as the Russian government continues to assert its control of this medium as well. The internet was the last refuge of The New Times, which had to cease publication of its print edition due to a lack of funding.
The court decision itself is suspect. Rather than pretend the fine (supposedly triggered by single failure to update registration paperwork three months ago) could be discussed or disputed, the court made its decision without input from the defendants. New Times' staff and lawyers were not present and evidence showing the outlet had made a good faith effort to rectify its error was not presented.
The court case, which began back in April, suddenly accelerated towards a hefty fine following the publication's interview with a prominent Putin critic. There are additional details contained in The New Times' post on the subject -- including its justifiably dour announcement that it will be appealing this decision -- harbors no expectations any Russian court will reverse this decision.
If it all plays out the way everyone involved believes it will, the Russian government will have secured a "100% Complete" trophy for press suppression. If it can just keep the internet in line, it will be able to return the country to its former Cold War glory.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fine, foreign agents, news, reporting, russia
Companies: the new times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putin and Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Putin and Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Putin and Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more "whataboutism" ... hopefully for the last time
It's worth pointing out that the United States also has its own version, essentialy a mirror image, of Russia's "foreign agents" law, called the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
Unlike The New Times, which refused to open its books to the Russian government and was thus fined as a result, Moscow-based News outlet RT complied with FARA as US law requires, reporting it's internal finances and registering as a Foreign Agent with the US government.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rt-agrees-to-register-as-an-agent -of-the-russian-government/2017/11/09/bd62f9a2-c558-11e7-aae0-cb18a8c29c65_story.html
RT was also put inder multiple government investigations in the UK, which could result in fines, restrictions, or being kicked out of the country.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/18/media/rt-russia-uk-investigation-ofcom/index.html
Short story: the Russian government is acting in very similar fashion to the US & UK governments regarding "enemy" news media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why yes, your comment IS a great example of that
Indeed, if only that had been covered in the article, perhaps in the third paragraph(fourth including the quotation)...
As for your 'The US/UK does that same thing', by all means present an example of them shutting down a news publication shortly after it did an interview with a notable critic of the one(s) in charge, as while I'm sure Trump would love to do something like that to all the 'fake news', as far as I know he hasn't quite managed it yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s not "whataboutism” when I do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more "whataboutism" .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: more "whataboutism" .
This SJW narcissism is precisely what elected Trump btw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: more "whataboutism" .
dumbo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: more "whataboutism" .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]