Hate Speech in Internet Communication

Karimova Tat'yana Sergeevna PhD in Pedagogy Head of the Department, Department of Foreign Languages and Speech Culture, East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia 664074, Russia, Irkutsk, Lermontov str., 110, 8(3952) 41-27-12 karimova_tanya@internet.ru Other publications by this author

In the realities of reality, Internet communication is a common means of everyday verbal online interaction. As a result, in modern society, according to E.I. Galyashina, "the manifestation of ethnic and religious intolerance, political correctness in the media, including the Internet, is increasing, which is expressed in the increasing expansion of criminal behavior, verbal aggression and other forms of functioning of the so-called "hate speech". The use of the "language of enmity" represents a real information threat to the ideological security of communication" ^[2]. 

The problem of the "language of enmity" was considered sociologically (R. Akifyeva, A.M. Verkhovsky, I. Dzyaloshinsky, D. V. Dubrovsky, O. V. Karpenko, G. Kozhevnikova, E. Y. Koltsova, E. Ponarin, I. V. Sledzevsky, E. E. Taratuta, A. Tolkacheva, F. I. Torchinsky, V. R. Filippov, E. O. Khabenskaya, L. L. Shpakovskaya), ethnological (V. K. Malkova, V. A. Tishkov) and psychological (A. D. and A. A. Leontiev, M. V. Kroz, A. R. Ratinov, N. A. Ratinova), and then in the linguistic aspect proper (A. I. Grishchenko, L. V. Dulichenko, O.S. Korobkova, N. A. Kupina, N. V. Muravyeva, N. A. Nikolina, S. V. Svirkovskaya, Yu.V. Shcherbinina, etc.) ^[7].

According to Y.V. Shcherbinina: "The "language of enmity" are words and expressions that subconsciously or explicitly program people for aggression, are its trigger mechanism.... The "language of enmity" serves to express hatred "for everything "different", unusual, different from the prevailing stereotypes of a particular social or cultural community of people" ^[15]. 

O.S. Korobkova considers the "language of enmity" through the prism of the opposition "friend ? foe" and defines "the language of enmity as a way of linguistic construction of models and practices of social inequality to express ethnic differences. Linguistic means help to label the "alien" ^[7].

E. P. Sokolova understands the language of enmity as "verbal discrimination and verbal aggression against ethnic and social groups. The language of enmity forms the image of a "stranger" ^[11].

According to E.D. Ponarin, "the language of enmity should be considered as "methods of linguistic construction of models and practices of social inequality" ^[12].

A.V. Gladilin notes that "the most important factor determining the essence of the "hate speech" is that it is based on such phenomena as social stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination, and is part of a broader and more complex phenomenon, which in the sciences studying communication is called communication based on prejudice and discrimination" ^[3].

According to E. Fromm, "the manifestation of the "language of enmity" is associated with the existential needs of a person, which in turn are determined by the specific (social) conditions of human existence" ^[14]/

As A.A. Denisova notes, "the language of enmity integrates the linguistic means of expressing the "sharply negative attitude" of opponents" — carriers of a different system of religious, national, cultural or more specific, subcultural values. This phenomenon can act as a form of manifestation of racism, xenophobia, ethnic hatred and intolerance, homophobia, as well as sexism" ^[5].

We consider it necessary to focus attention on the fact that the "language of enmity" includes "linguistic invective". In the latest philosophical dictionary, the concept of linguistic invective is defined as "a cultural phenomenon of social discrediting of a subject by means of a text addressed to him, as well as a stable language turnover perceived in a particular cultural tradition as offensive to its addressee." ^[4]

Thus, the "language of enmity" is a certain system of expressions, utterances that has developed in a person as a representative of a certain culture, possibly accompanied by photo or video materials that contain insults, humiliation or a call to violence, or other other actions aimed at undermining the well–being of a group of people united by one for they are a common feature that is not characteristic of others (people, groups).

Taking into account the above, we consider it necessary to analyze the linguistic means contained in the statement, which has the features of the "language of enmity". Any speech utterance is analyzed by lexico-grammatical, discursive (textual) units. Thus, Yu. V. Shcherbinina identifies the following means of language:

It should be noted that the "language of enmity" is not so easy to define, since the boundary between offensive words and neutral ones is sometimes difficult to draw: over time, the word changes its stylistic coloring and what used to be neutral becomes offensive.

Yu.V. Shcherbinina highlights another feature of the "language of enmity" - it is its manipulative nature with the help of which "it is very easy to hide true intentions and pass one off as another" ^[15]

In linguo-criminology, there are classifications of the "language of enmity".

For example, A.M. Verkhovsky suggests classifying speech utterances that have signs of "the language of enmity" as follows ^[1].

As noted by D.V. Dubrovsky, O.V. Karpenko, "researchers from the European University divide texts into 2 categories: texts with a relatively soft "language of enmity", containing signs of division into "WE are a group" and "THEY are a group", and texts with a relatively hard "language of enmity", also containing motivational constructions who call for negative actions against "THEY are a group")" ^[6].

M. V. Krozom, N. A. Ratinova propose the following classification: conformity statement – the creation and development of a negative ethnic stereotype regarding the general idea of nationality, race, religion;

false attribution – the assertion of the commission of a crime by representatives of any ethnic group - "imaginary defense" – the initiation of exacting actions against a certain nation, race, religion." ^[8]

In the context of this study, let's consider the meaning of the words "hatred" and "enmity". In the Explanatory Dictionary of Ozhegov S.I., the following interpretations are given: "enmity is relations and actions imbued with hostility, hatred; hatred is a feeling of the strongest enmity, malice" ^[9]. According to M.A. Osadchy, "hatred is a psychological state, but enmity is activity or readiness for activity" ^[10], and "in legislation and legal literature these concepts are not differentiated; these two concepts are interrelated: in order to form enmity, it is necessary to generate hatred through information in a particular social group or A.V. Gladilin asserts that "the "language of hostility" is used against people belonging to other ethnic groups and races, to social groups: the disabled, the elderly, people of non-traditional sexual orientation, etc. A special target group is migrants, who may be objects of the language of hostility, not belonging to this applies to other ethnic groups and races" ^[3].

When conducting a linguistic and forensic examination of a speech utterance (text), the concept of a "social group" also occurs. In the Dictionary of the Russian language, "social" in most encyclopedic dictionaries is usually understood as "social, relating to the life of people and their relationships in society", while a group means "a set of people united by common interests, profession, activity, etc." ^[13].

Let's consider the description of cases from the practice of linguistic expertise, speech utterances in text files from an Internet resource.

The expert has questions:1.       

Are there statements in the submitted texts that negatively assess a person or group of persons united on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as belonging to any group?

2.        Are there motivational statements in the submitted texts calling for hostile actions of one group of persons against another group of persons, united on the basis of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion?

The following vocabulary and methodological literature was used during the examination:

1. Weller M. Psychology of energy evolutionism.

2. Efremova T.F. Modern explanatory dictionary. Vol. 1-3 – M., 2006.

3.        Kveselevich D.I. Explanatory dictionary of profanity of the Russian language. – M., 2003.

4.        Krysin L.P. Explanatory dictionary of foreign words. – M., 2000 S.A.

5.        Kuznetsov S.A. Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian language – St. Petersburg, Norint., 2007.

6.        Mokienko V.M., Nikitina T. G. Dictionary of Russian swearing: matizms, obscenisms, euphemisms. - St. Petersburg, 2003

7.        Ushakov D.N. Explanatory Dictionary of the modern Russian language. – M., 2014.

Establishment of research objects and their descriptionThe presented texts are posted on the Internet user's page under the nickname "AAA" by means of a repost.

The texts are interpersonal, have signs of publicity, are recorded using the means of the Russian language, have semantic, logical, formal-grammatical connectedness of language units, are accessible for semantic understanding. Thus, they are suitable for conducting linguistic research.The analysis of the linguistic characteristics of the disputed texts (hereinafter referred to as ST) showed the following:

ST 1 is a polycode text of an Internet resource, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a statement: "Vile smelly gypsy e.....", the nonverbal part is presented in the form of an image of a smiling boy.

ST 2 is a polycode text of an Internet resource, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a statement: "A Jew is like a pig: nothing hurts, but everything groans (a Russian proverb)," the nonverbal part is presented in the form of an image of Jews.

ST 3 is a polycode text, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a poem called "Pogrom", beginning with the words: "Everything with Jews is very simple..." and ending with the words: "... And arrange a pogrom," the nonverbal component depicts a young man with a girl performing actions resembling a beating, aimed at a man whose external signs can determine whether he belongs to Jews, in the background there is a burning synagogue, around which there are gallows.

ARTICLE 4 is a polycode text, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a poem called "Tajik", which begins with the words: "Here is a bad and dirty Tajik..." and ends with the words: "... We hate their faces!...well, tolerasts too ...", the non-verbal part of which depicts a man sweeping up garbage, to his left is a shaved man in tattoos, presumably with an axe in his right hand and a clenched fist of his left hand.

ST 5 is a polycode text, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a poem called "Chock", which begins with the words: "Black chock is an Islamist", "black, dirty and stupid", "he wipes his ass with sand", "he does not know letters and numbers"; ends with the words: ... They will also come after him."

ARTICLE 6 is a polycode text, the verbal part of which is presented in the form of a poem called "Gypsies", which begins with the words: "Her shawl is like a hedgehog prickly ..." and ends with the words: "... An ugly black farce", the non-verbal part of which depicts a woman in a wide skirt, with gold teeth, in a red scarf, in her belt she has a dagger, in her hand she holds a bag with the inscription "heroin", with three children who look out from behind her back.

Taking into account the specifics of the actualization of the lexical, syntactic-semantic, stylistic, formal-logical levels of the text, the methods of analysis of the provided materials are selected: conceptual, component, lexical-semantic analysis, semantic-syntactic analysis, functional-stylistic analysis, linguistic-stylistic analysis, text authorization method.

The following terms and definitions are used in the process of research and execution of the conclusion:

Addressee – the person to whom the speech (text) belongs, the sender of the speech message.

The addressee is a real or imaginary person to whom the speech (text) is addressed, the recipient of the speech message. 

An utterance is a unit of communication that has semantic integrity and can be perceived by the listener (addressee) in these communication conditions.

A group as an object of evaluation is a set of persons, each of which has stable (unrelated to the current state) distinctive features that unite the members of the group and are the evaluation criterion.

Context is an oral or written speech that has semantic completeness, allowing to clarify the meaning and meaning of individual fragments (words, expressions or text fragments) that make up it.

Nickname is a network name, an alias of an Internet user.

A race is a group of humanity united by a common origin and a common hereditary physical characteristics: skin and hair color, eye shape, skull shape, etc. The basis of everyday ideas about race is the knowledge of externally observable differences between people (in naive perception, races are best differentiated: by skin color - yellow, black, white, red; by eye section).

Nationality – belonging to a nation.

A nation is a historically established stable ethnic community of people based on a common language, territory, economic life, as well as on the basis of a voluntary and naturally accepted national culture specific only for a given ethnic group and a national interest formed on its basis.

Origin – belonging by birth to some class, class, nationality, locality.   

Evaluation (evaluation category) is a set of multi–level units united by evaluation semantics and expressing a positive or negative attitude of the author to the content of speech. The evaluation is characterized by a special structure – a modal frame, which is superimposed on the utterance and does not coincide with its logical-semantic or syntactic construction. The elements of the evaluative model framework are the subject and the object connected by the evaluative predicate.

The subject of assessment is the person or society from whose point of view the assessment is given; the object of assessment is the person, object, event or state of things to which the assessment relates.

Solution of question No. 1. When solving question No. 1, we use the structural components of the assessment: the subject of the assessment is the person or society from whose point of view the assessment is given; the object of the assessment is the person, object, event or state of things to which the assessment relates.

The ST1-ST6 presented for analysis has an informative and evaluative orientation. By type of addressing – interpersonal, with signs of publicity (the page is available for viewing by an unlimited number of Internet users).

In article 1, a statement was revealed in which a person designated as a "gypsy" is negatively assessed: "Vile smelly gypsy fuck......."

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX"

- the object of evaluation is a person designated as a "gypsy".

Vile – 1. disgusting; disgusting, nasty. 2. Vile, dishonest, vile ^[2].

Smelly - razg.-snizh. Bad, unpleasant smelling; fetid ^[2].

Fucking taboo! The same as the fuck ^[3].

Fucking taboo! Lustful, loving to copulate. ^[3].

The above lexemes have a negative connotation and express a negative assessment of a person designated as a "gypsy". The use of words as taboo, marked "colloquially-reduced" reinforce the negative meaning.

Thus, in ST1 there is a statement in which a negative assessment of a person designated as a "gypsy" is displayed.

In Article 6, in the form of a poem called "Gypsies", a statement was revealed in which representatives of the group of persons "Gypsies" are negatively assessed: "And she herself is smelly" "rottooth and mustache" "what kind of beast is this, guys? Right! This is a gypsy" "A black-haired gypsy" "takes money from people."

During the study of the material , the following structural components of the assessment were identified:

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX".

- the object of evaluation is a group of persons "gypsies".

Smelly – smelly - razg.-snizh. Bad, unpleasant smelling; fetid ^[2].

Rotten tooth – rotten teeth – rotten - Spoiled, destroyed by decay, decay; rotting, decomposing ^[2].

A tooth is a bone formation that serves mainly for grabbing, biting and chewing food ^[2].

Mustache – mustachioed - the one who has a mustache (about a person or an animal) ^[2].

Beast - I is a wild – usually predatory – animal.

II M. 1. razg.-snizh. an extremely cruel, heartless, rude man.

2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word ^[2].

A gypsy woman is a representative of a nationality of Indian origin, who usually lives in nomadic and semi–nomadic groups in different countries of the world ^[2].

The black-ass, too, that the black-ass in the meaning. sushch. m vulg., neglect. The nickname of the Caucasians ^[3].

Takes away – take away - steal, steal something ^[2].

In Article 6, the lexemes "gypsy", "tabor", "them", "them" indicate belonging to a group of persons.

The above lexemes have a negative connotation and express a negative assessment of the group of persons "Gypsies". Words marked "colloquially reduced" reinforce the negative meaning.

The author points out that "gypsies" are not people, but wild animals, and also focuses on the lifestyle of "taking money away from people" and appearance.

Thus, in Article 6 there is a statement in which a negative assessment of the group of persons "Gypsies", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin, is displayed.

In Article 2, "A Jew is like a pig: nothing hurts, but everything groans (a Russian proverb)", the following structural components of the assessment were identified during the study of the material:

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX"

- the object of evaluation is a generalized image of a group of persons "Jews".

In CT2, a statement was revealed in which representatives of the group of persons "Jews" are negatively assessed:

Jew - razg.-snizh. 1. The name of the Jew (usually with a touch of disdain).  2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word ^[2].

Pig -1. razg. dirty, untidy person; slob.

2.razg.; peren. An ignorant, uncultured person with low habits ^[2].

 Zhidovye - razg.-snizh. the same as the Jew ^[3].

Fuck... i-t a boo! The same as fucking ^[3].

Fucking taboo! Lustful, loving to copulate ^[3].

Based on the context (nonverbal component), it can be assumed that it is not a person who is evaluated, but a group of persons, because the figure accompanying this text depicts people with the same external signs.

The above-mentioned lexemes have a negative connotation and express a negative assessment of the group of persons "Jews", also having the mark "colloquially reduced" reinforce the negative meaning.

Thus, in Article 2 there is a statement in which a negative assessment of a group of persons "Jews" united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin is revealed.

VST 3 "Everything with zhydami is very simple: zhyd raw materials for the Holocaust!" during the study of the material, the following structural components of the assessment were identified:

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX"

- the object of evaluation is a generalized image of a group of people "zhydy".

In article 3, a statement was revealed in which representatives of the group of persons "zhyds" are negatively assessed: "Everything with zhyds is very simple: zhyd raw materials for the Holocaust!": Zhyd - zhid - razg.-snizh.

1. The name of the Jew (usually with a touch of disdain).

2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word ^[2].

Raw material is a material intended for further industrial processing and manufacturing of the finished product ^[2].

The Holocaust is the mass destruction of people by burning in special furnaces (usually in relation to prisoners, more often to persons of Jewish nationality, on the territory of Eastern European states during World War II); burnt offering ^[2].

The intentional use of "zhy" instead of "zhi", which are not normative use according to the rules of the Russian language, but is the author's position.

The addressee points out the identity of the concepts of "zhyd" and "raw materials" and considers Jews not people, but material that will be burned in a special furnace as a result.

Thus, in ST3 there is a statement in which there is a negative assessment of a group of people "zhydy", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin."

In Article 4, "We hate their faces", "Here is a bad and dirty Tajik", the following structural components of the assessment were identified during the study of the material:

- the subject of the assessment is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX"

- the object of evaluation is a generalized image of a group of "Tajiks".

In CT4, a statement was revealed in which representatives of the group of persons "Tajiks" are negatively assessed:

Tajik-Tajiks – 1. The people who make up the main population of Tajikistan ^[2].

Hateful – hateful – causing hatred, malice, disgust. ^[2]

Erysipelas-erysipelas – 1. razg.-snizh. an ugly, unpleasant person's face. ott. a person with such a face. 2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word ^[2].

The addressee indicates that he hates the group of persons "Tajiks", it causes disgust.

Thus, in CT4, a negative assessment of the group of persons "Tajiks" was revealed on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

In ST5, it is a poem in which statements containing a negative assessment of representatives of the "chocks" group of persons were revealed: "A black chock is an Islamist", "black, dirty and stupid", "he wipes his ass with sand", "he does not know letters and numbers".

Chock – 1. The nickname of Caucasians and residents of Central Asia.

2. It is used as a censorious or abusive word ^[2].

Black – dirty, soiled, soiled ^[7].

Islamist – Islamists are those who profess Islam ^[2].

Islam is one of the most widespread monotheistic religions of the world, which originated in Arabia in the VII century, has spread in the Near and Middle East, in some countries of the Far East, Southeast Asia, Africa and has as its main tenets the worship of the one God - Allah and the recognition of the Prophet Muhammad as his messenger ^[2].

Dirty – soiled, smeared; not clean, not neat (about a person) ^[2].

Stupid - mentally limited, retarded in development (about a person) ^[2].

The use of the lexeme "chock" as abusive and censorious reinforces the negative meaning. 

The author of the poem describes a group of people "chocks" as uneducated, mentally retarded, with an untidy appearance nationality.

Thus, in ST5 there are statements in which a negative assessment of a group of people "chocks" united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin is revealed.

Solution of question No. 2. When solving question No. 2, we use the structural components of the assessment:

Addressee – the person to whom the speech (text) belongs, the sender of the speech message.

The addressee is a real or imaginary person to whom the speech (text) is addressed, the recipient of the speech message. 

As a result of the analysis of the communicative situation of ST3 for the presence of the necessary communicative structural components of motivation, the following was revealed: ST3 "Everything is very simple with zhydami: zhyd is the raw material for the Holocaust! So, brother, take a crowbar and arrange a pogrom!"

addressed to a wide range of people, interpersonal, has signs of publicity:

The communicative construction of the motivation ST3 is expressed using the imperative form of the verb 2 persons of the imperative mood singular: (take, arrange). Take-take – Grab, grab with your hand or hands ^[2].

Arrange-arrange – to do, to do, being a participant in something ^[6].

A crowbar is a large, heavy, pointed metal rod at one end, with which something solid is broken or broken ^[2].

Pogrom - Ruin, devastation, rout ^[5].

The addressee refers himself to the group of persons "not zhyds", opposed to the group of persons "zhyds", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

The purpose of the motivation is to ruin, devastate, smash "zhydov" with a heavy pointed metal rod.

Thus, in ST3, a statement of a motivational nature was revealed, calling for hostile actions of a group of persons "not Jews" in relation to a group of persons "Zhids" united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

As a result of the analysis of the communicative situation of ST5 "the black chock is an Islamist, beat him rather, a fascist" for the presence of the necessary communicative structural components of motivation, the following was revealed:

 addressed to a wide range of people, interpersonal, has signs of publicity,

 - addressee is an Internet user under the nickname "XXX".

- the addressee is a generalized image of the group of persons "fascists".  

The communicative construction of the call ST5 is expressed using the imperative form of the verb 2 persons of the imperative mood singular: (bey).· "the black chock is an Islamist, beat him quickly, a fascist"

Beat-beat - Beat; beat ^[2].

Fascist – 1. An adherent of fascism.

                 2. Extremely angry, aggressive person.

                 3. It is used as a censorious or abusive word ^[2].

Fascism is the ideology and practice of extremely militant chauvinism, racism and anti–humanism, extremely reactionary political currents based on this ideology, an open terrorist dictatorship and a repressive regime aimed at suppressing progressive social movements and at the destruction of democracy, at the partial destruction or enslavement of the defeated peoples left alive; the ideology of superiority over all other nations, elevated to the rank of state and international politics ^[4].

The purpose of the motivation is to strike, beat up a group of "chocks".

Thus, in ST5, a statement of a motivational nature was revealed, calling for hostile actions of a group of persons "fascists" in relation to a group of persons "chocks", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

As a result of the analysis of the communicative situation of Article 6, in the form of a poem called "Gypsies", for the presence of the necessary communicative structural components of motivation, the following was revealed:

- addressee is an Internet user under the nickname "XXXXXX".

- the addressee is depersonalized, all Internet users.  

ARTICLE 6 is addressed to a wide range of people, interpersonal, has signs of publicity.

The communicative construction of the call ST6 is expressed using a modal word with the semantics of a must: (it is necessary)+ burn: "it is necessary to burn their camp with fire, an ugly black farce"

To burn - to destroy with fire, to betray to fire, to expose to the action of fire ^[2].

A camp is a group of Gypsy families roaming together ^[2].

Ugly - disgusting; bad, disgusting, nasty, vile ^[2].

A booth is a light construction used for temporary housing, trade, etc. ^[2].

The purpose of the motivation is to burn, to destroy with fire a group of persons "Gypsies".

Thus, Article 6 revealed a statement on the page of an Internet user under the nickname "XXXX", who does not consider himself to be a group of persons "Gypsies", of a motivational nature in relation to a group of persons "Gypsies", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

Based on the results of the examination, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. In ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST6, statements were revealed in which groups of persons "Gypsies", "chocks", "Jews", "black-assed", "Tajiks", united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin, are negatively assessed. Statements in which a person or a group of persons united on the grounds of their attitude to religion or belonging to any group are negatively assessed were not revealed.

2. In ST3, ST5, ST6, statements of a motivational nature were revealed, calling for hostile actions of one group of persons in relation to another group of persons united on the grounds of race, nationality, language, origin.

Thus, the "language of enmity", as noted by Yu.V. Shcherbinina, "penetrated into the public sphere, he is not looking for a real enemy – he actively invents it, creates it from the immediate environment by the very name ..." ^[15]. Another danger of the "language of hostility" is connected with the fact that in the conditions of globalization of modern society, the criteria for its objective assessment are blurred: "cases of extremism or discrimination are often assessed by the ordinary consciousness as attempts to "defend independence", "protect national dignity", "strengthen traditions… The language of enmity "imperceptibly becomes the universal language of modern communication, rapidly rises from the level of everyday communication to the level of social generalizations ..., has no borders and surroundings, because it covers the entire speech space, captures all spheres of communication."

The author sees the reason in the fact that "in the era of globalization, the boundaries of ethnic groups and territories are blurred, identities are lost, differences are leveled."

It should also be noted that "the concept of the language of enmity allows us to shift the focus of attention of legal scholars, primarily criminologists, from the extreme criminalized part of the language of enmity – verbal extremism, to soft forms of the language of enmity – to propagandistic and discriminatory-xenophobic discourse. The prevention of the latter should ensure the prevention of crimes and offenses of extremist and terrorist orientation, which, of course, is part of the tasks of information and ideological security of Internet communication" ^[2].