Peculiarities of Administrative Cases on Recognition of Information Materials as Extremist and their Examination in terms of Secure Internet Communication

The paper discusses some of the features of administrative cases on the recognition of information materials posted on the Internet as extremist. An analysis of judicial practice in cases of recognition of information materials as extremist (Article 265.8 of the Administrative Procedure Code) highlighted their specifics and problematic aspects associated with expert opinions used to substantiate administrative claims. Presumably, extremist materials are detected by law enforcement agencies during the monitoring of social networks and other Internet resources and are sent for linguistic expertise. If a linguistic expert reveals any signs of extremism, the prosecutor issues a legal opinion and in the interests of the Russian Federation and an indefinite circle of persons applies to a federal court with an administrative claim to recognize information posted on Internet sites as extremist material, i.e. information, the distribution of which is prohibited in the Russian Federation. The paper concludes that to substantiate the arguments of administrative claims, the conclusions of linguistic experts are used, the quality of which determines the validity of the court decisions taken. As the main reason for expert errors, the authors cite the ambiguity of the interpretation of the concept of “extremist materials”, which entails a mixture of information calling for committing an extremist action or justifying or substantiating it, and the actual speech action of calling or justifying or justifying. It seems necessary to change the existing expert approach towards the development of a unified criterion for determining diagnostic complexes of signs necessary and sufficient to substantiate the extremist essence of information materials, taking into account the duality of their legal and linguistic assessment.

1. Власова О. Б. Признаки призыва в контексте лингвистической экспертизы // Международный научноисследовательский журнал. — 2016. — № 9 (51). — С. 123–125.

2. Галяшина Е. И. Лингвистика vs экстремизма. — М. : Юридический мир, 2006. — 96 с.

3. Галяшина Е. И., Подкатилина М. Л. Ответственность за демонстрацию нацистской атрибутики или символики либо обозначений, сходных с ними до степени смешения // Lex russica. — 2012. — № 4. — С. 766–773.

4. Джууэтт Г. С., О’Доннел В. Пропаганда и внушение. М., 1988 : реферат К. С. Гаджиева // URL: https:// psyfactor.org/lib/propaganda13.htm (дата обращения: 14.08.2020).

5. Мокиенко В. М., Никитина Т. Г. Большой словарь русского жаргона. — СПб. : Норинт, 2000. — 717 с.

6. Савинов Л. В. Экспертиза спорных информационных (экстремистских) материалов: методологические и правовые проблемы // Криминологический журнал Байкальского государственного университета экономики и права. — 2015. — Т. 9. — № 2. — С. 209–222.

7. Стернин И. А. Выявление признаков возбуждения расовой и национальной вражды в лингвистической экспертизе текста : методическое пособие. — Воронеж : Гарант, 2010. — 20 с.

8. Фридинский С. Н. Публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности: уголовно-правовая характеристика и вопросы квалификации // Юристъ-правоведъ. — 2008. — № 4 (9). — С. 67–71.