Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

NB: Administrative Law and Administration Practice
Reference:

Administrative liability as a means of countering the spread of illegal content on the Internet

Shulikov Kirill Andreevich

Postgraduate student of the Saint Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation

198206, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Pilyutov Pilot str., 1.

k.a.shulikov@yandex.ru

DOI:

10.7256/2306-9945.2024.1.69597

EDN:

UXUMQM

Received:

16-01-2024


Published:

04-04-2024


Abstract: The relevance of writing this article is justified by the growing possibilities of providing negative information and psychological effects on the individual psyche and public consciousness of Internet users. This fact has a negative impact on the state of security in various areas of public administration. The author of this article considers administrative liability as a means of countering the spread of illegal content on the Internet. The subject of the published research consists of: the norms of administrative and tort legislation establishing administrative responsibility for the dissemination of illegal content; administrative and judicial practice developing in this area of public relations; scientific literature devoted to the study of signs of administrative offenses, administrative responsibility and ensuring information and psychological safety of the population from threats arising in the Internet environment. The purpose of this work is to characterize the main signs of administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content, as well as legislation on administrative offenses in terms of bringing persons distributing illegal content to administrative responsibility.  The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, etc.), as well as systemic, structural-functional and formal-legal methods. The scientific novelty of the study consists in the formation of a list of administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content. Also, within the framework of this work, a characteristic of the main signs of administrative offenses is presented, on the basis of which it is possible to limit the dissemination of information in the network space. It has been established that the studied group of acts has a sign of social danger. Criteria for measuring the degree of public danger of offenses related to the distribution of illegal content are formulated. Justified and empirically confirmed (based on the results of a sociological survey of 100 employees of the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation) the need to adjust the legislation on administrative responsibility, namely, the addition of Article 4.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation with the following sign aggravating administrative responsibility: "the commission of an administrative offense in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet or using these technologies".


Keywords:

administrative responsibility, illegal content, distribution of illegal content, administrative offenses, differentiation of administrative punishment, information security, public danger, the Internet environment, destructive content, informational and psychological threats

This article is automatically translated.

One of the modern threats to the stable functioning of the emerging public relations include: an increase in the number of offenses and crimes committed in the network space; the lack of effective methods of administrative and legal influence applied to owners of social networks; poorly controlled nature of the information disseminated, etc.

One of the consequences of the above threats is the growth of negative informational and psychological impact on the individual psyche and public consciousness of the population through the dissemination of illegal content. By illegal content we mean: "information posted on the Internet, the dissemination of which is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as for the dissemination of which criminal or administrative liability measures are provided" [1, p. 179].

The issues of ensuring administrative and legal protection of users from negative informational psychological effects were studied in the works of N.T. Jafarova [2], V.S. Maurin [3], E.V. Razuvaev [4], K.D. Rydchenko [5], A.A. Smirnov [6], A.A. Chebotareva [7] and others. Recognizing the significant scientific contribution of these authors to the theoretical development of the phenomenon of "harmful information", legal means of ensuring information security of the individual, society and the state, we would like to focus the reader's attention on the administrative and legal characteristics of certain norms of legislation on administrative offenses, which are means of countering the spread of illegal content on the Internet.

It is necessary to agree with the researchers [8, pp. 62-63], who state the fact that offenses, the object of which is communication and information, are not limited exclusively to Chapter 13 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, but are dispersed in other chapters of the Code. The set of legal norms establishing administrative responsibility for the dissemination of illegal content on the Internet includes more than 40 types of administrative offenses (Appendix No. 1), dispersed in 9 chapters of the Code (5, 6, 8, 13-15, 17, 19, 20). The subject of the studied group of offenses is the information and psychological safety of the population, the mental and physical health of Internet users.

Let's consider the following signs of the specified group of administrative offenses: act; public harmfulness, public danger; illegality; culpability; administrative punishability.

In relation to the studied group, the act is characterized by the commission of the following actions that form the objective side of the offense: "dissemination", "propaganda", "involvement" in activities that can harm the health and development of minors, "use of mass media, information and telecommunications networks" to disclose information of limited turnover, "production", "product release", "organization", "violation", etc. These forms of expression of the objective side are implemented by performing active actions and are aimed at creating and transmitting information prohibited for dissemination to users of the network space.

However, administrative offenses related to the distribution of illegal content can also be committed through inaction. This group of acts includes: "non-compliance", "failure to take measures" to remove illegal content, etc.

The following substantive sign of "public danger", "public harmfulness" of an administrative offense is the subject of a broad scientific discussion. Thus, administrative scientists hold different points of view regarding the presence of an administrative offense: a material and legal principle [9, p. 32]; a sign of public danger [10, p. 34], public harmfulness [11, p. 72] offenses in general or their individual varieties [12, p. 39], and etc.

It seems that certain administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content have a sign of public danger, since the mass dissemination of information prohibited for circulation can lead to disorganization and destabilization of the main state and public institutions. A.V. Polushkin, when researching the nature and main signs of "administrative information offenses", also concludes that administrative torts related to the dissemination of prohibited information or committed in the information environment have a sign of public danger, not harmfulness [13, p. 25].

At the same time, one of the distinctive properties that increase the degree of public danger of illegal content is the possibility of its use to cause harm to any of the objects of administrative and legal protection listed in Article 1.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. The universal nature of illegal content as a means of harming any area of public relations is explained by the original nature of information, which is characterized by the reflection of real-life phenomena, events, etc. by translating them into symbolic, symbolic forms. In this case, the Internet is a space that concentrates and displays information about modern society, as a result of which the network space can be conditionally characterized as a mirror (in some cases hypertrophied) reflection of human society, translated into electronic form. As a result, illegal content can have a negative, in many cases destructive effect on various spheres of public relations.

The commission of administrative offenses related to the dissemination of prohibited information also contributes to the commission of certain types of crimes. For example, dissemination of information on methods and methods of cultivation of narcotic plants, places of sale of narcotic drugs and methods of their manufacture (Article 6.13 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation "Propaganda of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their precursors, plants containing narcotic drugs ...") It may be a prerequisite for the commission of crimes provided for in Chapter 25 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Illegal acquisition, storage, transportation, manufacture, processing of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues ...", etc.). This position in its decisions (definitions) is shared by the Shebekinsky District Court of the Belgorod region [14], The Urensky District Court of the Nizhny Novgorod region [15] and others, as well as representatives of the academic community [16].

The composition of administrative offenses that contribute to the commission of certain crimes can include distribution on the Internet:

- "instructions on the homemade manufacture of explosives and explosive devices, the illegal manufacture or alteration of weapons, main parts of firearms" - part 5 of Article 13.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (the commission of this administrative offense may lead to the commission of violent crimes using explosives, explosive devices, firearms; an increase in illegal arms trafficking, etc.);

- information on the sale of official documents entailing the onset or exemption from legal rights or obligations (advertising offering the possibility of: paid purchase of a driver's license, educational documents, passports of citizens of the Russian Federation, etc.) – part 1 of Article 14.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (commission of the specified administrative offense may lead to an increase in crimes, the objects of which are: road safety, management procedure, state security);

- extremist materials - Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (the commission of this administrative offense may lead to an increase in the number of crimes, the object of which is the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state), etc.

In the context of discussing the presence of a sign of public danger in the studied group of offenses, we consider it advisable to keep records of the number of user views and interactions with illegal content in order to better measure its degree. According to V.M. Berezin, the qualitative characteristic of the "mass" impact of information includes not only the number of persons receiving information, but also such signs as: the degree of intelligibility of perceived information and the response of information recipients from reading it [17, p. 99].

In most cases, the main damage, harm caused as a result of committing administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content, consists in the disorganization of existing public relations, deformation of socio-legal reality, and is achieved by promoting various social deviations, romanticizing illegal and antisocial behavior, discrediting the actions of government agencies, etc. Illegal content in this case acts as a link between the user and the authors of information prohibited from dissemination, who incline him to commit offenses, and in some cases crimes. The fact of distribution of illegal content already has a sign of public danger, since it has a negative impact on the individual psyche of the user, affects the formation of public consciousness of the population (in the case of mass distribution of illegal content).

According to the author, if law enforcement agencies have the technical ability to substantiate the degree of public danger of illegal content, it is necessary to specify a specific number: Internet users who viewed it; "reactions" (including comments) of users in relation to the information being disseminated; "reposts" or other actions aimed at its further dissemination.

The above-mentioned features of administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content allow us to conclude that this group of acts has a sign of public danger due to the possibilities of illegal content:

1) encroach on any of the objects of legal protection listed in Article 1.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation;

2) in some cases, it may be a prerequisite for the commission of certain types of criminal acts;

3) to have a massive negative informational psychological impact due to the use of targeting technologies, content prioritization mechanisms and other PR tools prohibited for the dissemination of information by the authors;

4) to have a negative impact on the legal, political, financial culture of the population, as well as on the general level of morality.

At the same time, the presence of these torts in the system of administrative offenses is associated with: the mass nature of their commission; the procedural complexity of bringing persons distributing illegal content to administrative responsibility; the need to promptly restrict access to illegal content (which in some cases is implemented administratively, rather than judicially). As a result, the elevation of the investigated acts to the rank of crimes and the use of "criminal repression" tools against authors and distributors of illegal content, in our opinion, is excessive. Since the recognition of any socially harmful act as criminally punishable, if it is relatively widespread, as N.F. Kuznetsova correctly noted, it is criminologically and socially inexpedient [18, p. 437].

The next sign of an administrative offense is illegality. In relation to the group of torts we are studying, illegality is characterized by the presence of both the requirements established by law for the order of information circulation, as well as measures of legal liability for non-compliance with them, and the rules of individual Internet platforms (social networks, audiovisual services, etc.), for violation of which there is a limitation of users' ability to use the functions provided by them. Thus, the sign of illegality in relation to the acts under study is characterized by both the presence of public law requirements, prohibitions, as well as measures of responsibility for their violation, and private law imposed by the owners of specific Internet platforms.

The next sign of an administrative offense is guilt. Within the framework of the topic under study, guilt is characterized by the attitude of the Internet user to the information materials posted and distributed by him; compliance with legal requirements on the part of legal entities – organizers of information dissemination, social networks, audiovisual services, etc. In our opinion, one of the evidences of the user's desire to disseminate information is the use of PR marketing tools, as a result of which the posted illegal content spreads to a large audience and can be included in the "news feed" of a specific socio-demographic group. The use of these tools indicates the foresight and desire of users to achieve the results of their illegal activities (distribution of illegal content in relation to a specific socio-demographic group, to a large audience, to people living in a particular region, etc.).

The next sign of an administrative offense is punishability. With regard to the studied group of offenses, in the text of various norms of the special part of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, there is a heterogeneous position of the legislator on fixing the qualifying sign of committing an administrative offense - "in" or "using information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet."

Of the 31 administrative offenses selected by the author, in the subject area of public relations studied by us, only in 9 cases legislative differentiation of administrative liability measures was carried out depending on the chosen place, method of committing an administrative offense – "in" or "using information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet" (Appendix No. 1). At the same time, in the remaining 22 administrative offenses, there is no differentiation of administrative responsibility on this basis, although their commission is also possible in the network space, which is confirmed by the judicial practice collected by the author. The described facts indicate a low degree of consistency in the construction of norms of the Special part of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and the absence of a unified approach to assessing the public danger of the same method, place of commission of administrative offenses.

The heterogeneity of the legal positions emerging in the norms of the special part of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is clearly seen in the analysis of administrative offenses provided for in part 1.1 of Article 6.13 "Propaganda of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their precursors, plants containing narcotic drugs ..." and Article 6.13.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation "Propaganda of nitrous oxide".

These norms of administrative and tort legislation are designed to ensure the protection of emerging public relations from negative informational and psychological effects, namely, the neutralization of propaganda for the consumption, manufacture, production, etc. of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, etc. and nitrous oxide. The objective side of both types of offenses is expressed in the propaganda of the consumption of narcotic drugs, etc., and nitrous oxide. However, in Article 6.13 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, there is a differentiation of measures of administrative responsibility and individualization of administrative punishment for propaganda carried out with the "use of the information and telecommunications network "Internet"", and in Article 6.13.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation there are no such distinctions. As a result, the punitive potential of the sanctions of Article 6.13.1 has been reduced by 5, and in some cases by 15 times, which is comparable in volume to the punishment provided for violation of Article 6.24 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation ("Violation of the prohibition of tobacco smoking, consumption of nicotine-containing products established by federal law ..."), although the degree of public danger of the compared offenses (6.13.1 of the Administrative Code The Russian Federation and 6.24 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) and the legal legalization of the compared substances (nitrous oxide and tobacco) are different from each other.

An analysis of the operative parts of Rulings on cases of other administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content also indicates an excessively humane approach by the courts to determining the amount of administrative punishment. Thus, for the dissemination of instructions on the homemade manufacture of explosives and explosive devices, the world court of the Perm Territory imposed punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 4 thousand rubles [19]. The Shebalinsky District Court of the Altai Republic also imposed minimum fines of 1 thousand rubles for the distribution of extremist materials [20]. For publicly displaying Nazi paraphernalia (committed on the user's personal page on the Vkontakte social network) The Sharlyk district court of the Orenburg region imposed an administrative fine in the amount of 1 thousand rubles [21].

Thus, in accordance with the nature and degree of public danger of these offenses, it is fair to conclude that the commission of an administrative offense "in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet or using these technologies" requires a separate legal assessment. Based on what, the commission of an administrative offense related to the distribution of illegal content on the Internet:

1) may be determined by the court as a circumstance aggravating administrative liability;

2) or be the basis for differentiating measures of administrative responsibility in separate articles of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

We agree with the position of V.E. Ruskevich, A.P. Dmitrienko and N.G. Kadnikov that the use of information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, is not always a factor "a priori" increasing the degree of public danger of acts [22, p. 590]. Therefore, we propose the addition of Article 4.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation with the following circumstance aggravating administrative liability: "the commission of an administrative offense in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet or using these technologies." However, this circumstance, depending on the nature and consequences of the committed administrative offense, according to the reasoned opinion of the judge, the official who appoints the administrative punishment, may not be recognized as a circumstance aggravating administrative responsibility.

The introduction of this norm will make it possible to differentiate administrative liability depending on the method and place of commission of an administrative offense – in or using information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet, and will also be a condition for individualizing punishment depending on the degree of public danger of the committed act.

As part of the conducted sociological survey of 100 employees of the internal affairs bodies, whose service experience in the territorial divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia is at least 5 years, it was revealed that:

1) the majority of respondents (81%) consider administrative offenses related to the distribution of illegal content on the Internet to be a sign of public danger;

2) this fact can be explained by the massive negative informational and psychological impact, as well as the procedural complexity of considering and attracting persons under the specified articles of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation;

3) 83% of respondents consider it advisable to supplement Article 4.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation with the following sign aggravating administrative responsibility: "committing an administrative offense in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet or using these technologies."

The analysis of the main signs of administrative offenses related to the distribution of illegal content, as well as administrative liability measures imposed for their commission, allowed us to come to the following conclusions:

1) a number of administrative offenses included in the group studied by the author have a sign of public danger, which is due to the possibility of illegal content: encroach on any of the objects of legal protection specified in Article 1.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation; be a prerequisite for the commission of certain types of crimes; have a massive negative informational and psychological impact on the individual psyche and public consciousness of network users The Internet;

2) the presence of a sign of public danger necessitates the adjustment of legislation on administrative offenses in terms of differentiation of administrative responsibility depending on the place, method of committing an administrative offense and individualization of punishment depending on the degree of public danger of the committed act. It is advisable to add the following circumstance to Article 4.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, aggravating administrative liability: "the commission of an administrative offense in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet or using these technologies," which will be applied at the discretion of the judge, the official who appoints the administrative penalty;

3) It is proposed to consider the number of criteria for measuring the degree of public danger of an act:

- views of illegal content by Internet users;

- "reactions" (including comments) of users in relation to the information being disseminated;

- "reposts" or other actions aimed at its further dissemination.

 

Appendix No. 1. "Table indicating administrative offenses related to the distribution of illegal content on the Internet"

 

Norms establishing administrative responsibility for the dissemination of prohibited information, as well as non-compliance with technical standards and requirements for the dissemination of information

Norms establishing administrative liability in relation to legal entities, owners of social networks, audiovisual services, news aggregators, organizers of information dissemination, etc. for non-fulfillment of obligations established by law in relation to the order of information circulation

1.                   

Part 1 of Article 5.12

-

1.

Part 2 of Article 6.17

2.                   

Parts 2-3 of Article 5.26

-

2.

Part 1 of article 13.21

3.                   

Article 5.49

-

3.

Parts 1-2 of Article 13.34

4.                   

Parts 2-3 of Article 5.61

+

4.

Parts 1-2 of Article 13.36

5.                   

Article 5.61.1

-

5.

Article 13.40

6.                   

Article 6.10

-

6.

Article 13.41

7.                   

Part 1.1 of Article 6.13

+

7.

Part 1 of article 13.44

8.                   

Article 6.13.1

-

8.

Article 19.7.10

9.                   

Part 1 of Article 6.17

-

9.

Article 19.7.10-1

10.               

Article 6.20

-

10.

Article 19.7.10-2

11.               

Parts 3-4 of Article 6.21

+

11.

Article 19.7.10-3

12.               

Part 2 of Article 6.21.1

+

 

13.               

Part 2 of Article 6.21.2

+

 

14.               

Article 6.23

-

 

15.               

Article 13.11

-

 

16.               

Article 13.11.1

-

 

17.               

Article 13.15

+

 

18.               

Part 3 of Article 13.21

-

 

19.               

Parts 1-2 of Article 13.37

-

 

20.               

Article 13.48

-

 

21.               

Part 1 of Article 14.1.1

-

 

22.               

Article 14.3

-

 

23.               

Part 2 of article 14.62

+

 

24.               

Part 2 of Article 17.13

-

 

25.               

Parts 3-5 of Article 20.1

+

 

26.               

Article 20.3

-

 

27.               

Article 20.3.1

-

 

28.               

Part 2 of Article 20.3.2

+

 

29.               

Parts 1-2 of Article 20.3.3 

-

 

30.               

Article 20.3.4

-

 

31.               

Article 20.29

-

 

Total: out of 31 offenses, only in 9 cases there is a differentiation of administrative liability measures as a result of committing an act "in" or "using" ITS (including the Internet)

 

 

Designations:

"+" - indicates the presence in the administrative and legal norm of a qualifying sign of committing an administrative offense in information and telecommunications networks (including the Internet) or using these technologies;

"-" indicates the absence in the administrative and legal norm of a sign of committing an administrative offense in information and telecommunications networks (including the Internet) or using these technologies.

References
1. Shulikov, K.A. (2023). Destructive content: concept, types, administrative and legal characteristics. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University named after N.I. Lobachevsky, 2, 176-182.
2. Jafarova, N.T. (2021). Administrative responsibility for offenses in the field of information turnover. Abstract. dis. ... cand. Jurid. sciences: 12.00.14. Moscow: V.Ya. Kikot Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.
3. Razuvaev, V.E. (2007). Legal means of countering information wars. Abstract of the dissertation. ... cand. Jurid. sciences: 12.00.14. Moscow: Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
4. Maurin, V.S. (2004). Legal analysis of harmful information in the conditions of the information society. Abstract of the dis. ... cand. Jurid. sciences: 12.00.14. Moscow: Russian Law Academy of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.
5. Rydchenko, K.D. (2011). Administrative and legal provision of information and psychological security by the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation. Dis. ... cand. Jurid. sciences: 12.00.14. Voronezh: Voronezh State University.
6. Smirnov, A.A. (2022). Formation of a system of legal support for information and psychological security in the Russian Federation. Abstract. dis. ...Dr. Jurid. sciences: 12.00.13. Moscow: Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
7. Chebotareva, A.A. (2017). Legal provision of personal information security in the global information society. Abstract. dis. ...Dr. Jurid. sciences: 12.00.13. Moscow: Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
8. Tereshchenko, L.K. (2017). Trends in the establishment of administrative responsibility in the information sphere. Journal of Russian Law, 10, 61-71.
9. Agapov, A.B. (2007). Administrative responsibility: textbook. Moscow: Eksmo.
10. Rossinsky, B.V. (2022). Administrative offenses as a threat to national security. Bulletin of the University of the estate of O.E. Kutafin, 11, 30-40.
11. Kuznetsova, N.F. (2010). The importance of public danger of acts for criminalization and decriminalization. State and law, 6, 67-75.
12. Lazarev, B.M. (1985). Administrative offenses and responsibility for their commission. The Soviet state and law, 8, 30-40.
13. Polushkin, A.V. (2009). Information offense: concept and types. Abstract. dis. ... cand. Jurid. sciences: 12.00.14. Ural State Law Academy. Yekaterinburg.
14. The decision on administrative case ¹ 2A-160/2022 dated 02/22/2022. The official website of the Judicial and Regulatory Acts of the Russian Federation. Retrieved from clck.ru/36VuyB
15. Decision on administrative case ¹ 2A-197/2020 2A-197/2020~M-133/2020 M-133/2020 dated 04/28/2020 Official website "Judicial and Regulatory Acts of the Russian Federation". Retrieved from https://clck.ru/36Vv2i
16. Dremlyuga, R.I. (2008). The Internet as a way and means of committing a crime. Information law, 4, 27-31.
17. Berezin, V.M. (2011). On criteria and levels of mass electronic communication. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Series: Literary studies, journalism, 1, 98-106.
18. Kuznetsova, N.F. (2003). Selected works. Collection of scientific papers. St. Petersburg: Legal Center Press.
19. Administrative offense case ¹ 5-313 /18 dated May 03, 2018. The official website of the GAS "Justice". Retrieved from https://clck.ru/36Vup2
20. Decision on administrative case ¹ 5-716/2021 dated November 11, 2021. Official website "Judicial and Regulatory Acts of the Russian Federation". Retrieved from //sudact.ru/regular/doc/Za6axHDDkRVT
21. Decision on administrative case ¹ 5-34/2022 dated February 15, 2022. Official website "Judicial and regulatory acts of the Russian Federation". Retrieved from //sudact.ru/regular/doc/WhjFDViyEUbB
22. Russkevich, E.A., Dmitrienko, A.P., & Kadnikov, N.G. (2022). The crisis and palingenesis (rebirth) of criminal law in the context of digitalization. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Law, 3, 585-598.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review is, as its name implies, administrative responsibility as a means of countering the spread of illegal content on the Internet. The stated boundaries of the study are fully respected by the author. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the article, but it is obvious that the scientists used universal dialectical, logical, sociological, formal-legal, hermeneutic research methods. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is undeniable and justified by him as follows: "One of the modern threats to the stable functioning of emerging public relations include: an increase in the number of offenses and crimes committed in the network space; the lack of effective methods of administrative and legal influence applied to owners of social networks and other Internet platforms; poorly controlled nature of the distributed information , etc . One of the consequences of the above threats is the growth of negative informational and psychological impact on the individual psyche and public consciousness of the population through the dissemination of illegal content." Additionally, the scientist needs to list the names of the leading experts who have been engaged in the study of the problems raised in the article, as well as reveal the degree of their study. The scientific novelty of the work is manifested in a number of conclusions and proposals of the scientist: "It seems that certain administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content have a sign of public danger, since the mass dissemination of information prohibited for circulation can lead to disorganization and destabilization of the main state and public institutions"; "... according to the author, law enforcement agencies in the presence of for the technical possibility to substantiate the degree of public danger of illegal content, it is necessary to specify a specific number: Internet users who viewed it; "reactions" (including comments) of users in relation to the information being disseminated; "reposts" or other actions aimed at its further dissemination"; "In our opinion, one of the evidences of the user's desire to disseminate information is the use of PR marketing tools, as a result of which the illegal content posted is distributed to a large audience and can be included in the "news feed" of a specific socio-demographic group. The use of these tools indicates the foresight and desire of users to achieve the results of their illegal activities (distribution of illegal content in relation to a specific socio-demographic group, to a large audience, to people living in a particular region, etc.)", etc. Thus, the article makes a definite contribution to the development of domestic legal science and deserves the attention of potential readers. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the author substantiates the relevance of his chosen research topic. In the main part of the work, the scientist analyzes the signs of the group of administrative offenses he studies, simultaneously identifying problems of legal technique and making recommendations for improving the current administrative legislation. The final part of the article contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the article corresponds to its title, but is not without some drawbacks. So, the author writes: "It seems that certain administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content have a sign of public danger, since the mass dissemination of information prohibited for circulation can lead to disorganization and destabilization of the main state and public institutions." The scientist does not explain what exactly is the difference between administrative offenses that have a sign of public danger from administrative offenses that have a sign of public harmfulness. How appropriate is the existence of such a typology? Does this blur the line between crime and administrative offense? The scientist notes: "Both administrative offenses are designed to protect the emerging public relations from negative informational and psychological effects, namely, the neutralization of propaganda for the consumption, manufacture, production, etc. of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, etc. and nitrous oxide." Of course, we should actually be talking about administrative and legal norms, which enshrine the relevant elements of administrative offenses. The article needs additional proofreading. It contains multiple typos, punctuation and stylistic errors. So, the author writes: "By illegal content, we mean: information posted on the Internet, the dissemination of which is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as for the dissemination of which criminal, administrative or other types of legal liability are provided" - the colon is superfluous. The scientist notes: "One should agree with the researchers [1, pp. 62-63], who state the fact that offenses, the object of which is communication and information, are not limited exclusively to Chapter 13 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, but are dispersed in other chapters of the Code" - there is no comma after the word "information". The author indicates: "As part of the conducted sociological survey of 100 employees of the internal affairs bodies, whose service experience in the territorial divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia is at least 5 years, it was revealed that: 1) the majority of respondents (81%) consider administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content on the Internet to be a sign of public danger; 2) this fact can be explained by the massive negative informational and psychological effects, as well as the procedural complexity of considering and bringing persons to administrative responsibility under the specified articles of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation ..." Comma after "they believe" is not needed; not "impacts", but "impacts". The above list of typos and errors is not exhaustive. The bibliography of the study is presented by 14 sources (dissertation, scientific articles, textbook, materials of judicial practice). From a formal point of view, this is quite enough; in fact, some provisions of the work need to be clarified. There is an appeal to opponents, both general and private (N. F. Kuznetsova), and it is quite sufficient. The scientific discussion is conducted by the author correctly. The provisions of the work are not always justified to the necessary extent.
Conclusions based on the results of the study, there are ("1) a number of administrative offenses included in the group studied by the author have a sign of public danger, which is due to the possibility of illegal content: encroach on the objects of legal protection specified in Article 1.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation; be a prerequisite for the commission of certain types of crimes; have a massive negative informational and psychological impact on the individual the psyche and public consciousness of Internet users; 2) the presence of a sign of public danger necessitates the adjustment of legislation on administrative offenses in terms of differentiation of administrative responsibility depending on the place, method of committing an administrative offense and individualization of punishment depending on the degree of public danger of the committed act. It is advisable to add the following circumstance to Article 4.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, aggravating administrative liability: "the commission of an administrative offense in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet or using these technologies", which will be applied at the discretion of the judge, the official who appoints administrative punishment; 3) The criteria for measuring the degree of public danger of the act are proposed to consider the number of: - views of illegal content by Internet users; - "reactions" (including comments) of users regarding the information being disseminated; - "reposts" or other actions aimed at its further dissemination"), and certainly deserve the attention of the scientific community, but some of them, as already mentioned, need additional argumentation. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of administrative law, information law, provided that it is finalized: disclosure of the research methodology, additional justification of the relevance of its topic (within the framework of the comment made), clarification of certain provisions of the work and conclusions based on the results of the study, elimination of violations in the design of the article.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Administrative responsibility as a means of countering the spread of illegal content on the Internet." The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of administrative responsibility for the dissemination of illegal content on the Internet. As the author points out in the article itself, after describing the degree of development of the topic, "Recognizing the significant scientific contribution of these authors to the theoretical development of the phenomenon of "harmful information", legal means of ensuring information security of the individual, society and the state, we would like to focus the reader's attention on the administrative and legal characteristics of certain norms of legislation on administrative offenses, which are means of countering the dissemination of illegal content on the Internet." In general, the subject of the study includes, first of all, the opinions of scientists, as well as the provisions of regulatory legal acts. Research methodology. The purpose of the study is not stated directly in the article. At the same time, it can be clearly understood from the title and content of the work. The purpose can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects of the issue of administrative responsibility for the dissemination of illegal content on the Internet. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen the methodological basis of the study. In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, induction, and others. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and share the conclusions of various scientific approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw specific conclusions from the materials of judicial practice. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author actively applied the formal legal method, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of current legislation (first of all, the norms of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). For example, the following conclusion of the author: "The heterogeneity of the legal positions emerging in the norms of the special part of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is clearly seen in the analysis of administrative offenses provided for in part 1.1 of Article 6.13 "Propaganda of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their precursors, plants containing narcotic drugs ..." and Article 6.13.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation "Propaganda of nitrous oxide". These norms of administrative and tort legislation are designed to ensure the protection of emerging public relations from negative informational and psychological effects, namely, the neutralization of propaganda for the consumption, manufacture, production, etc. of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, etc. and nitrous oxide. The objective side of both types of offenses is expressed in the propaganda of the consumption of narcotic drugs, etc., and nitrous oxide. However, in Article 6.13 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, there is a differentiation of measures of administrative responsibility and individualization of administrative punishment for propaganda carried out with the "use of the information and telecommunications network "Internet", and in Article 6.13.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation there are no such distinctions." The possibilities of an empirical research method related to the study of judicial practice materials should be positively assessed. Thus, we note the following conclusion of the author: "The analysis of the operative parts of Decisions on cases of other administrative offenses related to the dissemination of illegal content also indicates an excessively humane approach of the courts to determining the amount of administrative punishment. Thus, for the dissemination of instructions on the homemade manufacture of explosives and explosive devices, the World court of the Perm Territory imposed punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 4 thousand rubles [19]. The Shebalinsky District Court of the Altai Republic also imposed minimum fines of 1 thousand rubles for the dissemination of extremist materials [20]. For publicly displaying Nazi paraphernalia (committed on the user's personal page on the Vkontakte social network) The Sharlyk district Court of the Orenburg region imposed an administrative fine in the amount of 1 thousand rubles [21]." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the study, allows you to study all aspects of the topic in its entirety. Relevance. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. There are both theoretical and practical aspects of the significance of the proposed topic. From the point of view of theory, the topic of administrative responsibility for the distribution of illegal content on the Internet. In fact, the facts of the distribution of illegal content online have recently become more and more. Measures to counteract this should be fully effective and take into account the peculiarities of the development of public relations in the network. It is difficult to argue with the author that "One of the modern threats to the stable functioning of emerging public relations include: an increase in the number of offenses and crimes committed in the network space; the lack of effective methods of administrative and legal influence applied to owners of social networks; poorly controlled nature of the information disseminated, etc." research in the proposed area is only worth welcoming. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. Firstly, it is expressed in the author's specific conclusions. Among them, for example, is the following conclusion: "An analysis of the main signs of administrative offenses related to the distribution of illegal content, as well as administrative liability measures imposed for their commission, allowed us to come to the following conclusions: 1) a number of administrative offenses included in the group studied by the author have a sign of public danger, which is due to the possibility of illegal content: encroach on any of the objects of legal protection specified in Article 1.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation; be a prerequisite for the commission of certain types of crimes; have a massive negative informational and psychological impact on the individual psyche and public consciousness of network users 2) the presence of a sign of public danger necessitates the adjustment of legislation on administrative offenses in terms of differentiation of administrative responsibility depending on the place, method of committing an administrative offense and individualization of punishment depending on the degree of public danger of the committed act. It is advisable to add the following circumstance to Article 4.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, aggravating administrative liability: "the commission of an administrative offense in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet or using these technologies," which will be applied at the discretion of the judge, the official who appoints the administrative penalty." These and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Secondly, the author proposes generalizations of empirical data, which may be useful to specialists in the field under consideration. Thus, the materials of the article may be of particular interest to the scientific community in terms of contributing to the development of science. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "NB: Administrative Law and Practice of Administration", as it is devoted to legal problems related to administrative responsibility for the dissemination of illegal content on the Internet. The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, as the author considered the stated problems and achieved the research goal. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as fully positive. The subject, objectives, methodology and main results of the study follow directly from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography.
The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by authors from Russia (Russkevich E.A., Dmitrienko A.P., Kadnikov N.G., Berezin V.M., Rossinsky B.V. and others). Many of the cited scholars are recognized scholars in the field of administrative law. I would like to note the author's use of a large number of materials of judicial practice and empirical data, which made it possible to give the study a law enforcement orientation. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of various aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. All quotes from scientists are accompanied by author's comments. That is, the author shows different points of view on the problem and tries to argue for a more correct one in his opinion. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are fully logical, as they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the development of institutions of administrative responsibility for offenses on the Internet. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend publishing"