Lyudmila Narusova, a member of the Federation Council’s Constitutional Committee, stood alone in opposition as the chamber considered a law that would punish discrediting members of the NWO, including volunteers, offering a pointed critique of how the text was written. In a recent interview with Reedus, she argued that the wording left a broad margin for interpretation, making it easy to conflate legitimate critique with harmful discrediting. Narusova emphasized that terms and definitions in the bill were so vague that distinguishing between ordinary public commentary and actions intended to undermine the authority or legitimacy of those involved in the operation became nearly impossible for the average citizen to discern. She suggested that a piece of legislation this far reaching should not rest on ambiguous language that could suppress debate or chill legitimate expression, and she warned that the line between criticism and discrediting could be drawn in ways that would not withstand fair consideration over time. In her view, a fair critique—rooted in civic discourse and guided by democratic norms—could be misread as discrediting, which would risk turning constructive accountability into a prosecutable offense, thereby stifling discussion and transparency in a society that values open debate. Narusova framed the issue as one of principle: if the law is designed to protect the reputation and mission of those serving in difficult, high-stakes operations, it must also protect the public’s right to speak clearly about policies, decisions, and outcomes without fear of punishment for expressing disagreement or dissatisfaction. She contended that the bill, as drafted, would create a dangerous precedent where the boundaries of acceptable speech are defined not by clear standards but by the unpredictable judgments of prosecutors and judges, potentially chilling essential political dialogue. The question, she remarked, is not whether criticism should be restricted, but whether the restrictions are written in a way that guards both liberty and accountability without turning every critical remark into a potential crime. She pointed to the importance of comprehensibility in any legal framework, arguing that laws that are easy to misunderstand or misapply undermine public confidence and invite inconsistent enforcement across regions and cases. Narusova did not oppose accountability outright; instead, she insisted that the mechanism for accountability must be precise, fair, and anchored in well-defined terms that distinguish critique from deliberate denigration or deception. Her perspective reflected a broader concern about how posturing and rhetoric in high-stakes security contexts can quickly morph into punitive measures when the legislative language fails to clarify intent, scope, and consequence. She urged legislators to reexamine the definitions, to invite broader public commentary, and to consider amendments that would preserve the protective functions of the law while enabling responsible, transparent discussion about the actions and outcomes of those involved in the operation. The debate in the Federation Council thus became a test case for the balance between protecting the integrity of mission-related efforts and preserving the citizens’ freedom to speak honestly about them, a balance that is central to any modern legislative framework that aims to endure in a pluralist society. In this context, Narusova’s concerns resonated with those who view robust public discourse as a cornerstone of democratic governance, a reminder that laws should facilitate informed debate rather than become tools for suppressing it.
Earlier in the general meeting of the Federation Council, a decision was approved to discredit SVO members, and the corresponding criminal liability provision was amended to increase the maximum sentence for this offense from five to seven years, signaling a tougher posture toward those who would attempt to undermine the credibility of participants in the operation. This shift comes as part of a broader trend in which lawmakers seek clearer accountability mechanisms for actions perceived as directly harming the public interest, even as critics continue to press for clearer language that avoids punishing legitimate expression. The discussion around the measure highlighted competing priorities: safeguarding the reputation and effectiveness of the operation on one hand, while preserving the public’s right to question, scrutinize, and critique policies and personnel on the other. Proponents argued that the adjustments would deter unwarranted attacks and protect the integrity of official actions, whereas opponents warned that the same vagueness Narusova identified could lead to overreach, uneven enforcement, and chilling effects that dampen civic participation. As the debate progressed, observers noted that the final form of the law would set a precedent not just for this specific operation, but for the broader culture of political accountability, free expression, and the responsible use of criminal penalties in sensitive national matters. The outcome underscored the essential tension between safeguarding national security interests and upholding the rights of citizens to openly discuss and evaluate those interests without fear of arbitrary criminal consequences, a tension that remains a central question for lawmakers in the current climate.