The so-called “law of libel” is an initiative of MPs, which appeared in the context of the unfolding “case Gandzyuk”.
This was during a press conference in the information Agency “ГолосUA” said political analyst Alexei Yakubina.
According to the analyst, the key concept is the so-called “law of libel” – to scare, to complicate the work of the media, to create a situation in society, when people will reflect on every word, “include” self-censorship.
“The government wants to have the ability sauce security to take away the licenses of television channels. It is, in fact, extrajudicial selection of licenses and out-of-court closure of media outlets is a key question that the government is trying to focus. This desire to limit the ability of statements and discussions,” – said A. Yakubina.
The analyst added that this is an obvious attempt on the eve of elections to hang a sword of Damocles over all media. The so-called “law of libel” is an initiative of MPs, which appeared in the context of the unfolding “case Gandzyuk”.
“The emergence of this initiative is due to the fact that the deputies are trying to make “trial balloons” to see how society will react, how will the circulation of information” – suggested A. Yakubina.
The analyst said that a similar attempt to impose certain restrictions against the freedom of speech have already been made, now there is a new bill that only decisions of the national security Council to close the channels. It is obvious that the power that came in the Wake of the Maidan, she tries to return to the technology of information control.
We will remind, in January 2018 the faction “Block of Petro Poroshenko” has addressed to the Verkhovna Rada with a request to organize a working group to develop a draft law on countering fake news. Then against the law “On defamation” made by the people’s representatives and social activists. But in November 2018, a group of deputies from the MFP registered in the Verkhovna Rada a new draft Law “On defamation”. The international community and activists saw him as a danger to freedom of speech.