The head of the Safe Internet League, Ekaterina Mizulina, has issued a warning about potential legal action targeting blogger Artemy Lebedev and journalist Yuri Dud, who is described in Russia as a foreign media agent. This information appeared in a message published on Mizulina’s Telegram channel, outlining the stance of the organization.
She stated that, following the publication of an interview that allegedly spread material harming the honor, dignity, and business reputation of the Safe Internet League and of Mizulina personally, the organization would pursue a lawsuit to protect their reputation. The plan, as described, is to file claims for moral damages against Lebedev and Dud, with a demand for compensation totaling 10 million rubles. The move is framed as a measure to remedy what Mizulina characterizes as reputational injury tied to the interview dissemination.
According to Mizulina, the funds obtained from any legal judgment would be allocated to assist the families of participants in the Special Military Operation, reflecting a view that the consequences of online discourse should have tangible support for those affected by national service and its broader implications.
In discussing the context, Mizulina questioned how the matter should be viewed historically, noting that during the Great Patriotic War, interviewing Vlasovites was considered treason. The remark aimed to draw a parallel between perceived betrayal in wartime and contemporary media actions, underscoring the seriousness with which the League regards information interactions that touch on national memory and loyalty.
The day prior, Lebedev gave an interview during which journalist Yuri Dud described the Safe Internet League, led by Mizulina, as engaging in what Dud called information terrorism. The characterization added fuel to the ongoing dispute over the legitimacy and impact of online campaigns and the boundaries of acceptable discourse about public organizations and political figures in the current media environment.
Earlier Russia experienced a broad disruption in the operations of a major video platform, a development that has fed into ongoing debates about media regulation, platform responsibility, and the broader information ecosystem within the country.