Freedom of expression is sacrosanct in the realm of media and information. As per Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it continues to be hailed as both a sacred right and a medium for individualistic freedom and liberty; we would all be lost without it.
A concept that entices individuals into projecting their own truths, thoughts and opinions, can be both a blessing and a curse. The Russian Government and the Russian media have always had a severed relationship; censorship has now become rife in twenty-first century political reporting.
Freedom of expression appears to be slowly eroding within Russia, but these underlying notions of media suppression and disinformation have nonetheless been around since the Soviet era. Under the oppressive regime of Stalin, Soviet Russia enjoyed no freedom of expression, leaving the people of Russia with zero access to unbiased, unregulated information and unjustly subject to a fully censored ‘pro-Russian’ media. This curtailment of knowledge is said to have steadily dissipated overtime, but I tend to disagree; Putin’s Government has simply just gotten better at hiding it.
Originally, the Russian Government under Putin’s regime operated along relatively liberal lines, but in early 2012, things began to change. In response to parliamentary elections held in 2011, online news platforms were heavily criticised for playing a central role in orchestrating support for political protests, ultimately kickstarting a holistic clampdown on freedom of expression within Russia. A rapid influx of legislation focussing on internet constraint and media regulation plagued Russia; often referred to as a domestic equivalent to the ‘Great Wall of China.’ Implemented laws include the creation of a government-ran website blacklist, the censoring of all material relating to extremism, the shutting down of any anti-Kremlin news sites, and so much more. Essentially, any form of resistance to the Kremlin or its activities was, and continues to be, attacked with immediate censorship; a striking comparison to that observed under the Stalin regime. The severe constriction of Freedom of Expression creates a sphere of Russian media that lacks authenticity and truth. It exposes the nation’s citizens to this ‘pro-Russian’ narrative that continues to indoctrinate them until this very day.
The fatal relationship between the Russian political establishment and competing opposition movements is articulated explicitly through the case of Alexei Navalny. As one of Russia’s most outspoken Putin critics, his story has become a prime example of what the wrath of the Russian Government can look like. As a prominent political opposition leader, social media became Navalny’s access to the political arena. He founded the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) to conduct anti-corruption investigations, alongside combining practices of investigative journalism with civic activism to reveal governmental wrongdoing. In other words, Alexei Navalny became a threat to Russian censorship. He accused Putin of ‘sucking the blood out of Russia’ and was continuously moved in and out of imprisonment for a variety of charges against the state. However, the silencing of Navalny took one step further; one that involved the targeting of a Russian citizen by their very own native government.
The Novichok poisoning took place in August 2020, where Navalny collapsed on a flight over Siberia and was rushed to hospital after an emergency landing in Berlin. Repeated testing by government officials and the German military found ‘unequivocal proof’ of a chemical nerve agent (of the Novichok group) being found within Navalny’s bloodstream. Novichok was the same chemical weapon that nearly killed Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England in 2018. Upon his return to Moscow in 2021, Navalny was immediately detained and remained in custody until the very end of his life, dying in prison in 2024 after feeling unwell and losing consciousness after a walk. Navalny’s treatment and forced characterisation as one of Russia’s ‘most dangerous criminals’ was a skilful move by the Russian Government to continue controlling their narrative. Portraying Navalny as this dangerous being, whose information was false and cannot be trusted was a way of discrediting his work and entrenching the untouchable Russian regime.
The Russian Government is clearly threated by freedom of expression; it is an unfathomable concept that Alexei Navalny’s story reveals the true consequences of. The Russian Government’s attempts to re-shape their domestic internet is simply a way for Putin to assert dominance over his own people. The power that Article 10 can give its user is a power that Russian citizens continue to lose out on every day. Navalny’s activation of his right was deemed an act of bravery, when it should be nothing more than a basic right or necessity. The ‘information warfare’ that Russian media outlets continue to fight every single day, working endlessly to provide honest and truthful storytelling to the people of Russia, is both an exhausting, but crucial endeavour. The freedom to express one’s own thoughts and opinions is such a sought-after, valuable concept that many will risk their own lives for it.
Alexei Navalny was just one man brave enough to stand up in the fight against Russian interreference, and although costing him his life and his livelihood, he triumphantly shed light onto an arena that will hopefully soon see freedom from censorship once again.
Comments