disser_arhipov

98

billion computer gamers in the world,126 and establishing these kinds of correlations does not seem very convincing. We emphasize, however, that for the context of our work it is illustrative to postulate the link between real aggression and “violence” in games. In our view, and we will elaborate on this in Chapter 3 of this study, the question of what constitutes violence in games can be addressed not only to psychologists but also to lawyers – it is a question of legal interpretation and functional adequacy between what is violence in reality and what is conventionally called “violence” in games. At such a turn, the issue is related to the problems of the semantic limits of law. Let us give a visual and conditional127 illustration: a realistic depiction of violence, functionally adequate to the real world (which in fact is found in a small number of truly brutal games such as the Manhunt series128) may well fall under the scope of legal regulation of children protection legislation, but if the game contains only a few “squares” (conditional pixel objects), one of which disappears in a collision with the other, on the gamer’s slang it may well mean “killed”. But with the same success we can position chess as a game of age rating “18+”, because it is a game full of cruelty and violence, where sometimes such terrible thing happens as elephants eating queens.

A balanced position on the issue of violence in games in Russian periodicals is presented in the works of A.D. Belousov. The author analyzes the current research on the possible connection between computer games and crimes in real life and concludes that not everything is obvious in this area. The main question, he claims, is –

«[i]n the context of juvenile delinquency, we consider it the most urgent task to establish not only a correlation but also a causal link between teenagers’ fascination with computer games

126According to The European Mobile Game Market, the total number of players in computer games in 2016 is more than 2.5 billion people. See: Video Gaming Industry Overview // WePC. May 2018. – [Electronic resource]. – [Site]. – URL: https://www.wepc.com/news/video-game-statistics/ (accessed: 11.01.2019).

127Conditional – because in most modern games the design is somewhere in the middle between these polar examples.

128See: Manhunt [Electronic resource] // Rockstar Games. – [Site]. – URL: https://www.rockstargames.com/manhunt/ (accessed: 21.02.2019).

99

containing scenes of violence and the characteristics of individual components of their personality structure, which, in turn, may also lead to their criminal behaviour».129

The author notes a number of correlations, but points out that

«[t]he question remains: does a minor’s personality change destructively under the influence of games containing scenes of violence and unmotivated cruelty, or, on the contrary, do teenagers with the appropriate psychological characteristics choose audio-visual products mainly with such content? Moreover, opinions are expressed about the positive role of these game situations, which allow both children and adults to remove unnecessary aggression outside real interpersonal relations. In addition, some researchers believe that the likelihood of negative personal development under the influence of a passion for computer games should be considered to be very high».130

Based on the experience of studying information in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, as well as his own study of the alleged relationship, A.D. Belousov concludes that there is no reliable link between the relevant indicators, but points out that “cruel” computer games can act as one of several external environmental influences that partially predetermine subsequent behavior, and advocates the development of a system of age ratings (later expressed in the system of norms of the Children Protection Law, adopted after his article was published).131 Similar results of comparative analysis of modern research are reflected in the results of the project of Saint Petersburg State University.132

In the context of the above discussion, the experience of recognizing computer sport as a sport is also interesting.133 In particular, not all kinds (genres) of computer games

129Belousov A.D. To the Question of the Influence of Computer Games on the Criminal Behavior of Minors [Electronic resource] // Administrative Law and Process. 2007. No. 6. – Access from the legal reference system «ConsultantPlus» (accessed: 10.01.2019). – Para. 13.

130Ibid. Para. 14–17.

131Ibid. Para. 18–25.

132See: Useful Games: Global Research on Interactive Entertainment. Expert Council of Game Industry and Saint Petersburg State University on Unproven Harm to Video Games // DTF. – [Website]. – URL: https://dtf.ru/gamedev/5940– poleznye–igry–mirovye–issledovaniya–interaktivnyh–razvlecheniy (accessed: 21.02.2019).

133In 2016, for the second time, the Russian Ministry of Sports and Tourism included computer sports in the number of recognized sports (Order of the Russian Ministry of Sports and Tourism No. 470 of 29.04.2016), and in 2017 – into the

100

seemingly correspond to sports ethics and, as a consequence, not all of them are recognized. The reason is that some of them are believed to be based on violence, which, in some cases, is contrary to the Olympic approach. At the same time, a kind of “violence” is also found in recognized “discipline programs” of computer sports (i.e. specific computer games). Here, too, we approach the question of how the discussion of “violent” computer games is linked to the subject matter of this paper. Of course, the debate about the benefits or harms of computer games is far beyond the scope of this study, but the debate about how the term “violence”, as used in the Children Protection Law, should be legally interpreted is of direct relevance to the subject matter of the semantic limits of the law.

To clarify this thesis, let us consider three examples from the videogame industry: one of the first popular games “Space Invaders”,134 eSports discipline “Dota 2”135 and the “definitely brutal” game banned in a number of countries around the world “Manhunt”.136 On the example of specific materials from these games, it is obvious that from the external point of view “violence” is expressed in quite different ways – from the collision of pixels with a minimum of context and connotations in the first case (hardly the same violence that we see in the real world), to the photorealistic interactive process in the latter case. For the purposes of this paper, it is not so much the question of whether, and if so how, to restrict minors’ access to information products containing images or descriptions of violence that is of interest, but rather the question of when and under what conditions a set of abstract

number of sports developed at the federal level (Order of the Russian Ministry of Sports and Tourism No. 16.03.2017, № 183 in the edition of the Order of the Ministry of Sports of Russia from 22.01.2018 № 49), while the Federation of Computer Sports of Russia was accredited as the All-Russian Sports Federation (Order of the Ministry of Sports of Russia from 05.07.2017 № 618). A detailed analysis of the legal aspects of cybersports by the author is provided in the following publication: Arkhipov V.V. eSports Law: Fact or Fiction? // Zakon. 2018. No. 5. P. 80–92. See also the following general article: Hamari J., Sjöblom M. What is eSports and why do people watch it? // Internet Research. – Vol. 27. – Issue 2. – PP. 211–232.

134 See: Space Invaders. Electronic Game [Electronic resource] // Encyclopaedia Britannica. – [Site]. – URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Space-Invaders (accessed: 21.02.2019).

135Dota 2 [Electronic resource] // Dota 2. – [Site]. – URL: http://ru.dota2.com/ (accessed: 21.02.2019).

136Manhunt [Electronic resource] // Rockstar Games. – [Site]. – URL: https://www.rockstargames.com/manhunt/ (accessed: 21.02.2019).

101

pixels on the monitor screen can be legally interpreted as “violence”.137 This question is immediately and directly related to one of the criteria for the semantic limits of law developed in Chapter 3 of this study.

§ 3.3. Protecting historical memory with the instruments of criminal and administrative law

Let us turn to other examples. The issue of artistic imagination (or, probably, other kinds of “virtual” nature of information) is also relevant for the domains of administrative and criminal law connected to the protection of public interest in historical memory. The practice knows well Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Violations of the Russian Federation (hereinafter, the “CAV”). Part 1 Article 20.3 of the CAV provides administrative liability for propaganda or public demonstration of Nazi attributes or symbols, or attributes or symbols that are confusingly similar to the Nazi attributes or symbols, or attributes or symbols of extremist organizations, or attributes or symbols that are prohibited from propagating or public demonstration by federal laws. At the same time, neither Article 20.3 of the CAV, nor the Federal Law of 19.05.1995 No. 80FZ “On Commemorating of the Victory of Soviet People in the Great Patriotic War of 1941 – 1945” which it refers to,138 contains any reservations not only about artistic works,

137By the way, from the point of view of sociology of law we can offer the following hypothesis. In the twentieth century as a whole, more and more prohibitions of violence are being established as a “way of solving the problem”, including as a way of protecting honor and dignity. The use of fighting (not to mention a duel) in response to insult in modern legal systems will lead to the application of punishment to the insulted side rather than to the offending side. In a sense, victims of non-material affronts are deprived of behaviors that were both socially acceptable and socially encouraged until recently. In the moral sense, a person becomes defenceless against those who do not encroach on his physical body. One cannot be called to a fight, one cannot hit in return. As a consequence, and as a reaction to this, there is a growing sense of the need for an equivalent legal replacement of historical means of protecting honor and dignity. Hence the sudden “aggravation” of the information sensitivity of both individual citizens and society. Practice in the field of honor and dignity (individual citizens) and information restrictions (society) is developing. Accordingly, the development of the rule of law and legal outlook predetermines the restriction of the right to freedom of speech. Literally, according to Hobbes, the “war of all against all” is replaced by total prohibitions of Leviathan.

138Para. 3 Article 6 of the Federal Law No. 80-FZ of 19 May 1995 “On the perpetuation of the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945” prohibits the propaganda or public display of the attributes or symbols of

102

but also about academic or other similar sources. This has already given a rise to a number of controversial situations. While we earnestly support the values reflected in the preamble to the aforesaid law,139 we have to note a conceptual legal contradiction that appears if we read the term “public demonstration” literally or in broad sense. If prohibited symbols cannot be publicly demonstrated, this means that legally important decision on what relates to this symbols and what not, shall be made based on the information that is not publicly available. At the same time, the meaning of the principle reflected in Part 3 Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation means not only that laws and any normative acts that affect rights, freedoms and obligations of human an citizen (and in this case we speak about both obligations and constitutional rights, including right to disseminate information freely, participate in creative activities, teach and receive access to cultural values) are subject to mandatory publishing, but also that disposition of the relevant legal rules shall be known to a citizen. Otherwise the assumption that the laws are known could not work. It is precisely this argumentation that can work as formal legal argument for reservation on academic or other purposes in respect of other norms that limit dissemination of information. Nevertheless, it is ignored in this case. Of course, we can resort to the historical interpretation and say that currently, when such limitation is relevant in historical perspective, everyone “in any case” knows what symbols are prohibited, however this argument could hardly be seen as reasonable and corresponding to the nature of legal argumentation. It is more likely that here we need to admit a gap in law and speak bout

organizations that have cooperated with groups, organizations, movements or persons recognized as criminal or guilty of committing crimes under the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Principal War Criminals of the European Axis Countries (Nuremberg Tribunal) or by judgments of national, military or occupation tribunals based on the judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the trial and punishment of the main European war criminals (the Nuremberg Tribunal) or rendered during the Great Patriotic War, the Second World War.

139 As the preamble reads: “Proceeding from the traditions of the peoples of Russia, to keep and preserve the memory of the defenders of the Motherland and of those who gave their lives in the struggle for its freedom and independence, taking into account that care for the participants, veterans and victims of the war is a historical duty of society and the State, taking into account the popular and liberating nature of the Great Patriotic War, the participation in it of the peoples of Europe and other continents, the need for international cooperation in order to maintain general peace and harmony, and the prevention of manifestations of fascism in any form, this Federal Law is adopted”.

103

necessity to interpret the term “public dissemination” used in the CAV narrowly. In this context we also can remember the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter, the “RF CrC”). Part 1 Article 354.1 of the RF CrC (“Rehabilitation of Nazism”) provides, inter alia, criminal liability for denial of the facts established by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis, justification of the crimes established by this verdict, but equally – dissemination of knowingly false information on the activity of the USSR during the World War II made publicly. In principle, each of the elements of the objective side as reflected in the disposition of this legal rule may be reconsidered in the context of the problem of this research paper. However, we can sharpen attention on two most relevant aspects of the legal interpretation that relate to the terms of “denial of facts” and “knowingly wrong information”. Could they be applied to, for example, artistic works or interactive games that allow the development of the plot within the in-game world under the flow of “alternative history”?

§ 3.4. Legal qualification of the objective side of crimes committed with the use of fake weapons

In addition, it is obvious that the legal assessment of information, in the broad sense of the word, can have legal significance for virtually any other crimes, not necessarily related to the information directly (this, incidentally, reflects the fundamental role of social communication, including from the point of view of theoretical sociology). A variety of crimes can serve as an example. For example, Item 13 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 22.03.1966 No. 31 “On judicial practice in cases of open theft and robbery”, which is by this day invalid, states that

104

«[i]f the perpetrator has threatened with knowingly unsuitable weapons or imitation of weapons, such as a fake gun, a toy dagger (emphasis added – V.A.), etc., without intending to use these items to cause bodily harm dangerous to life, his actions (in the absence of aggravating circumstances) should be qualified as a robbery, provided for by Part 1 Article 146 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR».

Item 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 27.12.2002 No. 29 (ed. of 16.05.2017) “On judicial practice in cases of theft, open theft and robbery”, which is in force at the time of writing, contains the following wording:

«If a person threatened with knowingly unsuitable or unloaded weapons or objects imitating weapons (hereinafter emphasis added – V.A.), for example, a fake gun, decorative weapons, weapon-toy, etc., without intending to use these objects to cause harm dangerous to life or health, his actions (in the absence of other aggravating circumstances provided for as signs of crime), taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, should be qualified as a robbery, liability for which is provided for by Part 1 Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and if the victim understood that he or she was under threat of being attacked by unsuitable or unloaded weapons or objects imitating weapons, the act is qualified as open theft».

Regardless of the criminal law assessment of the change in approach to the cases under consideration, we note that the problem in criminal law has been recognized for a long time, and that the last of the cited acts also contains a criterion of the subjective perception of the victim, echoing the “theory of consent” for the interpretation of the “magic circle” in computer games proposed by J. Fairfield (see § 5 Chapter 2 of this study).

In addition, the assessment of these cases in the modern doctrine of criminal law is also very typical. As noted by R.S. Hasanov,

«[i]n such cases, what is of crucial importance for the correct qualification is what the subject (weapon or layout) and the intent of the attacker were in fact (hereinafter emphasis added – V.A.). If the qualification of the threat to the attacker by an unsuitable weapon or a mock-up of the weapon under Part 1 Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is

105

logical (the victim considers it to be a real weapon), then this cannot be said about the cases of threat by a suitable weapon, even if the person is not going to use it to cause harm. If an unloaded weapon in terms of the degree of danger (ability, or rather inability, to cause harm) may be closer to the fake weapon, then the loaded weapon creates an immediate and real threat (actual, not imagined by the victims) to the life and health of the victim. To cause real harm in this case, it is enough to pull the trigger, which under certain conditions can be done even instinctively».140

§ 3.5. Discussions in the area of law related to the appropriateness limits of artistic creativity

Let us turn to the method of analytic philosophy, taking the quotation just given as a reference. Of course, it is in this particular case that a special philosophy is hardly required in order to explain what the words that the author used – “real”, “factual”, “imaginary” – and common sense philosophy is enough. After all, the quote refers to the harm to life and health, and this is understandable. We note, however, that if it were even about property (not to mention information), the interpretation of these words in a legal context would be quite a challenge – in fact, the present study is devoted to its resolution. However, importantly, the nature of the problem is the same – what is considered “serious” (“real”, “factual”, etc.) for the purposes of interpretation and application of law, as well as lawmaking. We believe that the aforesaid examples from the field of criminal law, reflecting the problems of perception of information, are quite enough as an illustration for a study, the subject of which is neither administrative nor criminal law issues per se.

140 Hasanov R.S. The Problems of Classification and Proving of Armed Assaults [Electronic resource] // Criminal Law. 2015. No. 1. P. 35–39. – Access from the legal reference system «ConsultantPlus» (accessed: 10.01.2019). – Para. 68. It should be noted that in addition to open theft and robbery, from the point of view of criminal law, this problem is also relevant to the crime of hooliganism. According to Item 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 15.11.2007 No. 45 “On judicial practice in criminal cases of hooliganism and other crimes committed out of hooliganism”, “the use in the course of hooliganism of unloaded, defective, unsuitable weapons (e.g., training weapons) or decorative, souvenir weapons, weapons toys, etc., gives grounds for qualification of the acts committed under paragraph ‘a’ of Part 1 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” (i.e. with the use of weapons or objects used as weapons). The doctrine notes the inconsistency of the Supreme Court's position on this issue – see e.g. Abubakirov, F.M. Qualifications of Inflicting Damage to Health with Application of Weapon or Subjects Used as Weapon // Russian Investigator. 2016. No. 13. P. 17–20. However, this “inconsistency”, in fact, can be seen as an additional confirmation of the topicality of the issue at hand.

106

Reservations about “artistic” or “historical” in positive law are one side of the issue. We also have very interesting empirical material, on the example of which we can also raise the question of the limits of artistic creativity. This suggests a different view: the argument begins not with the question of the [semantic] limits of law, but on the contrary, with the question of the limits of creative freedom. This is a fairly well known problem of freedom of treatment of the author with real and historical material, for example, in the case of the creation of works devoted to real historical figures, but related to an artistic genre. From the legal point of view, these issues are associated, first, with the civil law institution of non-material values. Can a literary or cinematographic work of art, rather than documentary, for example, in principle, violate the right of the real subject or his heirs to honor, dignity and good name? Can the creative and artistic nature of the work in relation to a well known person give immunity to the author from the application of personal data legislation? What about extremism legislation? It should be noted that such questions are also particularly actualized in the modern information culture. In conditions when the means of production, search, transmission and distribution became publicly available, practices related to artistic or quasi-artistic (i.e. works created by nonprofessional users) creativity, as well as their discussion and, as a result, controversies, have intensified. Accordingly, the contradictions against the background of legal uncertainty regarding approaches to solving the problem of the semantic limits of law in theory and in practice have become aggravated. Let us consider a few practical examples.

Since this study focuses precisely on modern information culture, it would be quite legitimate to take as one example comics as a typical example of modern mass art. So, in 2019, the publishing house “Komilfo”141 refused to publish one of the chapters of the

141 See: Komilfo Publishing House [Electronic resource]. – [Site]. – URL: http://www.komilfobook.ru/ (accessed: 01.15.2019).

107

comic book about Deadpool,142 making reference to a consultation with an expert of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare.143 The question was related to one of the stories,

«in which it is told about the fight of Deadpool against a neo-Nazi named Baron Zemo. Part of the comic book was written from the point of view of a negative character who talks about the greatness of the white race, praises Hitler and talks about the need for a Holocaust. In parallel, he restores the Ku Klux Klan and is preparing a provocation to unleash an interracial war in the United States. Before the final battle, Deadpool changes into a Hassidic Jewish costume and calls Baron Zemo “a Nazi piece of [removed for ethical reasons].” This release is accompanied by the author’s epilogue, where David Lafem writes about a negative character: “The worst thing is that there are plenty of them in the real world.” In addition, he advises readers to “google about the Holocaust”, warning that it will be “not funny”».144

As mass-media mention,

«despite the obvious anti-Nazi thrust of history, the expert of Rospotrebnadzor said that from the point of view of Russian legislation,145 the publication of such a comic book is unacceptable. “The expert pointed to the presence of Nazi symbols and unjustified by the plot

142Deadpool is a known since the 1990s. Marvel Comics character in the comic book universe (by Fabian Nitsieza), an anti-hero with a cynical sense of humor. Repeatedly found in film and television films, computer games and, in fact, comics. See: Deadpool // Marvel. – [Electronic resource]. – [Site]. – URL: https://www.marvel.com/characters/deadpool-wade-wilson (accessed: 01.15.2019).

143According to Russian law, with some exceptions covered in this study, Rospotrebnadzor is not among the bodies that conduct informational product expertise, but it does not reduce the value and representativeness of the discussion that has arisen, especially with regard to subsequent historical examples from the US practice.

144See: Chernykh A., Karpenko M., Mironova K. Rospotrebnadzor Defeated a Superhero. Part of the Comic Book about Deadpool is not Allowed to Print in Russia // Kommersant. 15.01.2019, pp. 5. – [Electronic resource]. – [Site]. – URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3854153 (accessed on 15.01.2019); Russia Refused to Allow a Part of the Deadpool Comic Book to be Printed (in Russian) // Lenta.Ru. January 15, 2019 – [Electronic resource]. – [Site]. – URL: https://lenta.ru/news/2019/01/15/deadpool/ (accessed: 15.01.2019).

145In the meantime, we note that this once again proves how useful the participation of lawyers would be in content examination, since the professional competence of specialists from other fields of knowledge does not include the interpretation of legal norms – the admissibility or inadmissibility of publication is determined on the basis of not only expert assessment of content but also from the system of legal norms, the legal positions of the Constitutional Court and other components of the legal system that define the limits to the exercise of constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of speech and disseminating of information. In addition, the term “propaganda,” as it is used in the law, referred to below, is a special legal term that does not necessarily coincide with the meaning that is attached to it in non-legal sciences, although it overlaps with it (the same good example as in the case of "gambling" – much that is "gambling" from the point of view of psychology, is not so from the point of view of the current Russian legislation at the time of writing this work). It’s another matter if symbols are used in the comic book that are confusingly similar to the symbols of Nazi and other prohibited organizations – in this case, from a formal legal point of view can, we indeed can speak about a liability under Art. 20.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, but we have already considered this issue separately.