| More freedom of speech than Britain. PM Sir Keir Starmer should be ashamed of himself. |
According to the decision of the plenum, criticism of politicians, organizations, religious or ideological associations is permissible if it does not contain calls for violence, discrimination or other illegal actions and should not be interpreted as extremism.
Liability for inciting hatred is only possible for public actions intended for an indefinite number of people, taking into account the context and purpose of the statements.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified the procedure for balancing administrative and criminal liability, including reviewing the legality and enforcement of previously imposed administrative penalties. These changes take into account new articles of the Criminal Code on liability for extremist activity, adopted in 2022.
The Plenum indicated that criminal liability for the display of extremist symbols occurs only in the presence of propaganda or public display in a sense prohibited by law and provided that the person has previously been held administratively liable for a similar violation.
The use of such symbols for scientific, educational, artistic or journalistic purposes, as well as in the context of condemnation of Nazism and extremism, does not entail criminal liability.