The legislative debate in Russia recently centered on a proposal from the political movement New People, which sought to restrict the use of social media actions as grounds for administrative accountability. Specifically, the draft aimed to shield ordinary expressions of online sentiment, such as liking posts, from triggering administrative consequences. However, the Commission on Legislative Activities of the Government of Russia did not back the bill in its current form, signaling a gap between the proposed policy and the government’s current legal framework. The government’s stance was clear: the draft law, as presented, does not have the support of the executive branch and would require substantial revision before it could be considered further by federal authorities. This point was summarized in the official briefing that accompanied the draft when it was forwarded for review in March (source attribution: TASS).
The core intention behind the draft was to amend articles in the Code of Administrative Offenses related to incitement of hatred and the act of discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The key addition proposed a clause clarifying that expressive actions like tagging or highlighting posts on social networks should not fall under criminal or administrative liability when the action is only the expression of emotion. In other words, the authors anticipated a legal distinction between harmful conduct and personal sentiment expressed through engagement with online content. This attempt to codify such a distinction met questions about its practical enforceability and its compatibility with existing legal definitions (document overview and rationale cited by the government).
After sending the document to the government for consideration in March, the Council of Ministers raised concerns about its explanatory note. Officials noted that the material did not provide concrete evidence of a need to alter current laws, and crucially, it left undefined terms such as “expression of emotions” and “marking publications.” Without precise definitions, guidance to law enforcers and the courts would be unstable, increasing the risk of inconsistent interpretation across regions. The government’s position emphasized a preference for a more rigorous legal foundation and a clearer articulation of how online interactions should be categorized within the existing offense framework (government summary and policy discussion notes).
Separately, Parliament moved forward with another security-related measure in March that expands penalties for discrediting volunteers engaged in special operations. The new law authorizes punishment with up to 15 years in prison for individuals found to have discredited volunteers performing such operations. This development reflects a broader trend in the legislative environment where online discourse and the portrayal of national security activities are subject to heightened scrutiny and more stringent sanctions. Observers have noted that the interplay between online behavior and formal legal consequences continues to evolve, with ongoing debates about balancing freedom of expression against the perceived risks to national security and public order (parliamentary proceedings and official summaries).
In related political discourse, a former member of the State Duma suggested that culturally sensitive content, such as certain portrayals of characters like Barbie, should be restricted within Russia on the grounds of what was described as LGBT-propaganda concerns. This suggestion illustrates how public opinion and legislative proposals can intersect in sensitive cultural debates, sometimes generating media coverage and political commentary about the boundaries of acceptable content in online and offline spaces. The broader context shows a government that remains attentive to perceptions of content shaping social attitudes while navigating international and domestic expectations about freedom of expression and responsibility online (public statements and political commentary). [citation: TASS]