Today’s hearing was a rather amusing one. The panel of judges at the Moscow City Court was trying to figure out what kremleshushera means, quoted the line about the “golden loaf,” and wondered why Zhirinovsky’s son would need an apartment with seven toilets.
They were considering whether to block my blog. It turned out that out of thousands of posts, the prosecutor’s office objects to two of them (I’m not linking to them; you can google them): "The Kremlin riffraff is puffing out its cheeks" and "To the Anti-Maidan activists: don’t try to be holier than the Pope."
The entire panel tore into the Prosecutor’s Office and Roskomnadzor, sternly asking: is it really proportionate to block an entire blog when the objections concern just two posts? Does that really serve the public interest?
That, essentially, was what the whole discussion came down to: a) the law requires blocking specific pages by identifying the exact location of the “illegal information,” and b) in my case, the prosecutor’s office is blocking the entire blog, and even if I delete the two posts they dislike, nothing changes. Obvious nonsense.
By the end, it even started to feel as though we were about to witness one of nature’s rarest phenomena: a lawful decision by the Moscow City Court.
But you’re more likely to run into a unicorn in Biryulyovo (a working-class district in Moscow) than for someone with the surname “Navalny” to get justice in court.
The court agreed. The interests of society have been upheld.
Places