During a plenary session, the State Duma moved forward with the first reading of a bill that would impose administrative fines on what it calls garbage streams, a term used to describe the online distribution of questionable content. The development was announced on the Duma’s official website and has since drawn attention as lawmakers consider how to curb the spread of material that targets individuals or groups online through abusive or defamatory means. The proposed measure signals a tough stance on the dissemination of content that could undermine public order or infringe on the rights and safety of others, especially in the digital space where harmful posts can rapidly reach wide audiences.
Under the bill, publishers would face financial penalties if they are found to be illegally distributing photo and video material that depicts persecution online. The proposed fines for individuals range from 200,000 to 600,000 rubles, with the additional possibility of equipment seizure used in creating such materials. Entities or publishers could be required to pay between 300,000 and 700,000 rubles, accompanied by the seizure of relevant devices. The framework aims to deter the creation and dissemination of content that amplifies harassment or persecution, while ensuring that enforcement is paired with concrete consequences for offenders who profit from such material.
The text specifies that publishing such content would be treated as an aggravating circumstance and as a qualifying feature within Article 10 of the Criminal Code, highlighting the seriousness with which the legislature views online harassment and the spread of persecutory imagery. This approach reflects a broader effort to align cyber conduct with established criminal-justice standards, clarifying how violations may be charged and what penalties could apply when online actions cross the line into harm against others.
State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has framed these measures as a means to discourage bloggers and others who might seek to monetize online attention by bullying people. The idea is that the potential financial and legal consequences would make individuals think twice before participating in or facilitating campaigns that aim to shame, intimidate, or harass others on the internet. The discussion underscores the government’s interest in preserving a sense of security and responsibility in digital spaces, where the line between free expression and harmful behavior can sometimes blur in the rush to gain attention and followers.
The note accompanying the article emphasizes that the proposed innovations would not apply to works of science, literature, or art that hold historical, artistic, or cultural value. This carve-out suggests an intent to protect legitimate scholarly, cultural, and creative endeavors from being swept up in the regulatory framework intended to curb abusive content, ensuring that the bill targets harmful actions without chilling legitimate expression or research. The drafters point to the need for a careful balance between safeguarding individuals and protecting freedom of speech in cultural and educational spheres.
The draft further outlines that hooligan motifs would include actions carried out with the aim of disrupting public order and openly disrespecting society. Proponents argue that such criteria help prosecutors and courts distinguish serious offenses from more benign or satirical content. The bill envisions that protocols on administrative offenses would be drawn up by officials from Roskomnadzor and the police, with cases then presented to the courts for adjudication. This structure aims to provide a clear, centralized process for handling violations, while grounding enforcement in the institutions charged with supervising communications and public safety in the country.
In related developments, statements have been made by officials about increasing accountability for those who facilitate abusive streams. The discussions reflect ongoing concerns about the impact of online harassment on individuals, communities, and social discourse at large. The policy positions are part of a broader trend toward clarifying legal responsibilities for content creators, distributors, and platforms in a digitally connected environment, where the speed of information sharing can amplify harm if not properly managed.