Three bills that could dramatically restrict free speech have been submitted to the Verkhovna Rada.
They have not been considered in the first reading yet. However, if passed, they could introduce censorship similar to the restrictions faced in Russia under the dictatorship of Vladimir Putin.
Human rights watchdogs criticized the initiatives as sponsors of the draconian measures deny accusations of censorship.
Fake news bill
One of the bills was submitted to the Verkhovna Rada on March 12 by Igor Lapin, a lawmaker from the 80-member People’s Front party.
The bill has been compared to similar initiatives in Russia, which on March 18 enacted a law to block “fake news” and introduce criminal penalties for insulting state officials on the internet.
Lapin’s bill seeks to criminalize libel, which would be punishable with a fine of up to Hr 8,500 or community service of up to one year. Currently, libel can only be punished as part of civil lawsuits.
The legislation would introduce criminal penalties for “unreliable information” containing allegations of severe crimes or accusations made against candidates in legislative and presidential elections during election campaigns. This would be punished with a fine of up to Hr 17,000 or community service of up to one year.
Under Lapin’s bill, such cases will be considered under a fast-track “simplified procedure” in courts. Currently, civil libel cases may take years.
Moreover, during election campaigns courts will be able to suspend television channels’ licenses, ban the publication of print media or block sites, according to the bill.
However, ex-Information Policy Minister Tetiana Popova told the Kyiv Post that the bills were unlikely to be considered in the first reading before the March 31 presidential election.
“Such legislative initiatives may become a dangerous tool of censorship and pressure on independent media,” Freedom House, the Free Internet Coalition, the Crimea Human Rights Group and other human rights groups said in a joint statement on March 15.
There are concerns that the bill could target high-profile investigations like the Nashi Hroshi investigative show’s one into an alleged corruption scheme spearheaded by Oleg Gladkovsky, an ex-deputy secretary of the National Security and Defense Council and a top ally of President Petro Poroshenko.
Lapin has denied intentions to censor media and argued that the legislation aimed to better protect public officials whose reputation has been unfairly damaged.
A similar bill was submitted to the Verkhovna Rada in November by Poroshenko Bloc lawmakers Mykola Palamarchuk, Artur Palatny and Oleg Velykyn. It would also criminalize libel and make it punishable with up to three years in prison.
Internet censorship
A third dangerous bill was submitted to parliament in 2017 and included in the Rada’s agenda in 2018. On March 12, Popova published an alleged updated version of the bill and said it could be considered jointly with a bill on the Ukrainian language in March.
The original version of the bill was sponsored by Ivan Vinnyk, a lawmaker from President Petro Poroshenko’s dominant 135-member bloc, and People’s Front lawmakers Tetiana Chornovol and Dmytro Tymchuk. This version would grant prosecutors and the National Security and Defense Council powers to block websites they deem threatening to national security without a court ruling. A court will have to confirm the blocking of a website within 48 hours, however.
Under the bill, websites can be blocked if they “have an impact on decision-making, or the action or inaction of national or local government bodies, officials of these bodies, associations of citizens, or legal entities.” Sites can also be blocked if they “threaten national security, aim to intimidate the population, provoke a military or an international conflict, or attract the public’s attention to a convict’s (terrorist’s) certain political, religious or other views.”
If an internet provider fails to comply, it must pay 1 percent of its annual revenues as a fine. For repeat offenses, the fine is 5 percent.
The leaked updated version of the bill published by Popova appears to be even more dangerous. The blocking of sites will be possible without any court approval at all.
Under the law, internet service providers will have to block sites if ordered by either the National Security and Defense Council without court authorization or by courts.
Vinnyk, one of the sponsors of the original version, told the Kyiv Post he was not aware of the updated version of the bill. He said that the consideration of the bill had been postponed due to society’s concerns over free speech.
Vinnyk has denied the accusations that the bill would introduce censorship and argued it was necessary to counteract Russian propaganda and misinformation. n
