@Asspress....this is a civil court issue, not a crime. Only third world countries consider this a crime. If Russia wants to be classified with the third world, then this law will go a long way to do that.

I find it sad that a veiw of a group looking to protect freedom seems so disliked looking at the comments and votes. Here in the US, I can tell the president that he has all the value of a stale biscuit (to his face), and nothing can legally happen to me. Opinions against public officials are protected and retaliation is illegal. All issues of libel and slander are handled in CIVIL court, and the burden of proof is on the plantiff to prove damages.

As A local example, Democrat Steve Driehaus lost re-election in 2010 to a Republican challenger. Driehaus then sued the Susan B. Anthony List, citing them as the reason of his defeat after they criticized him over his support of Obamacare (requires abortion coverage in ALL insurance plans, no opt-out even with religious objections amoung other things), stating that in his support, he broke his pro-life promise to oppose abortion.

He failed to prove his case, even with a BIASED judge (the judge served as a president and director of a local pro-abortion lobby group [Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati]). Part of the ruling:

. .. The concomitant principles of free speech and truth collide most violently in the arena of political speech. During the recently passed national elections, citizens were bombarded with political advertisements that the targets of which daily denounced as lies. Who then shall be the arbiter of political truth? Ultimately, in a free society, the truth of political back and forth must be adjudicated in the “marketplace of ideas” ... ... (SBAL) asserts that “Driehaus cannot find a single case, in all of American history, that has awarded defamation damages based on a false statement about a public official’s position on public policy.” ... The law steers far clear of requiring judicial determination of political “truth,” and does so because of the serious dangers to democracy and the political process that would result from turning the courts into “truth squads” with respect to core political speech on matters of public concern.

It is a good idea because rather than the State Arresting someone for a crime, if defamation of character is involved it can be settled in civil court like most modern states. The current law belongs in Iran and NK, not Russia.