Mikhail B. Konashev

St. Petersburg Branch, Institute for the History of Science and Technology,
Russian Academy of Science

During first half of 1990s four large conferences on censorship were held in Russia: "The Freedom of Scientific Information and the Protection of State Secret", 24-26 September, Leningrad, 1991, "Censorship in Tsarist Russia and Soviet Union", 24-27 May 1993, Moscow, "Censorship in Russia: History and Modernity", 20-22 September, St. Petersburg, 1995, and "Censorship in Russia", 14-15 November, 1995, Ekaterinburg [1]. Besides some other conferences, seminars and workshops also took place at which problems of history of dealing with information in Russia and the peculiarity of modern situation in this field were discussed.

Like many other cultural and scientific projects, these were initiated by persons who were interested in this undertaking and who found the support of their colleagues and of various institutes and organizations. It is no accident that all conferences were held at libraries or under their auspices, and that the largest group of reporters were also comprised of librarians and researchers closely connected with libraries and archives (for example, historians, literary and art critics, etc.). Several foreign researchers (primarily Americans) participated in all four of the conferences. Among differences between first two and last two conferences one characterized definitely the tendency to recreate, mainly theoretically at least rightfulness of censorship. In several reports at both conferences it was argued that censorship is an essential and necessary element or factor of information regulation in any society, the society without censorship is impossible, and it is especially important to have censorship in such transformed society as Russian one.

Such approach or point of view provoked heated debates, especially at St. Petersburg conference. The debates demonstrated above all two opposite understandings of the phenomena of censorship: narrow one and broad one.

According to the first view, censorship is a special and separate state mechanism. This 'narrow concept of censorship is followed strongly by many. For example, according to V. G. Chernukha censorship is only a state censorship, and this institute of power is strongly alienated from society. By A. I. Reitblat censorship is a commanding body, some limitation of the circulation of information in society. According to A. V. Bl'um two kinds of censorship can be spoke about:

• first is an official (governmental) or state censorship;
• second is a social censorship (censorship of society).

V. Blum considered documents and publications with mark "DSP" (that is an abbreviation of "Dlya sluzhebnogo pol'zovaniya" [for official use]) as one kind of censorship too. V. N. Ryabchuk stated that censorship has three elements:

• this is a preliminary appraisement of text by state body;
• the appraisement of text by state body;
• the decision based on the appraisement of text by state body.

Public and other similar kinds of censorship can not be defined and regulated juridically. G. V. Zhirkov affirmed that there are two main conceptions of censorship:

• the censorship of institutions;
• the censorship of certain regime, restricting the circulation of information in society.

Both conceptions are right [2]. My proposal is to divide censorship into two conventional kinds of censorship: the censorship of information for common citizens (readers, viewers, etc.) and the censorship of information for specialists (historians, librarians, archivists, etc.). In some sense second kind of censorship is more important as sometimes it is simply impossible even to notice some alarming tendencies of public development without specialists' attention and assistance.

Foreign specialists on the history of censorship in Russia factually also used narrow conception of censorship. For example, M. T. Choldin wrote only about state censorship: "In tsarist Russia censorship of local and foreign editions was the part of governmental system." [3].

Nobody of upholders of narrow conception said anything about usefulness or actuality of censorship. Only V. N. Ryabchuk touched upon the theme of the applicability of censorship. According to V. N. Ryabchuk under usual conditions censorship has to be rejected. Its using is justified and excused only under conditions of state of emergency or of state of war [4].

The other broad point of view is that censorship can be defined as any limitation of information practised by any social group, or even by an individual. According to this broad point of view, censorship has always existed and would exist forever in any advanced society in some form or other. The questions are only to what degree should it exist and what forms of it are expedient and excusable.

M. M. Kovaleva defined censorship as any limitation or any form of social control of information because term "censorship" is derived from "qualification" [5]. She declared that nobody of earnest researchers in Russia and abroad think that any state system without the special institute of censorship is possible [6]. She stated also that there is not full clarity with the subject of censorship and methods of its study. She complained about a pure negative

attitude to censorship and the restricted interpretation of this phenomenon when censorship is considered only as an tyranny and an encroachment on the freedom of thought. Such narrow interpretation of censorship provoke gloomy associations with the Middle Ages, the Inquisitions, etc., and it is caused by privy sense of censorial activity which is closed for society. Another time M. M. Kovaleva claimed that censorial activity is censorship without its negative estimation [7].

According to M. M. Kovaleva traditional classification of censorship (preliminary one and post-censorship) is only a scientific instrument, and does not say much about the censorship as a social phenomenon. She affirmed that general scientific definition of censorship can be done if the main function of censorship which is the restriction of information is considered not only in context of its repressive content, but also in the context of political and spiritual culture of society. Therefore M. M. Kovaleva defined censorship not only as system of political and juridical control of the production, the circulation and the using of information, but also as a phenomenon expressing and formatting of the political and spiritual culture of society [8].

V. I. Kharlamov also supported a broad interpretation of censorship according to which censorship is something more than axis 'power-society'; censorship is an any act in order to correct texts. V. I. Kharlamov proposed his own term "field of censorship" for this broad interpretation of censorship. Censorship is not only limitation or restriction, but also substitution of texts, of writers, etc. [9].

L. M. Makushin stated with confidence: "censorship is the necessary element of administrative structure of society, the instrument of state power" [10]. Therefore state has to improve censorship, to transform it in accordance with historical conditions, social and cultural situation.

It is obvious that both these themes (the definition of censorship and the applicability of censorship in different societies) are closely correlated. This correlation, perhaps, was one of the reasons that positions of some reporters at conferences and seminars were enough complex, and sometimes even contradictory. Such complexity and contradictoriness reveal first of all the difficulties of studying and understanding of that subject which is named

censorship in Russia.

Some upholders of narrow conception said about the positiveness of several features or/and forms of censorship. For example, O. N. Myaeots said that fight for political correctness (PC) is a form of censorship [11]. A. I. Reitblat's view is partly double: from one side, one can say about censorship only in that case when there is "a commanding body" the task of which is to do censorship; from another side censorship is also some (not any, of course) kind of limitation, and what part of limitation of information is indeed censorship is undefined exactly, and who do censorship is undefined too. According to V. N. Ryabchuk preliminary censorship has some positive traits including such one as its reversibility [12].

Assertions of supporters of broad conception about some positive functions and results of censorship was not provided with factual data or instances. Complaining about a pure negative attitude to censorship and the restricted interpretation of this phenomenon M. M. Kovaleva was not able gave any one example (historic or actual) of positive influence of censorship [13]. When M. M. Kovaleva affirmed that censorship is also phenomenon expressing and formatting of the political and spiritual culture of society she said nothing about this "positive" cultural and political meaning of censorship for the culture or society, and did not indicate what censorship express and what it format in culture. In the end of her report she said categorically: "Any reasonable restriction by state is necessary" [14].

Phrases like this cause naturally "eternal" questions: What is the reasonable restriction? What is the criterion of reasonability? Who determine the reasonability of restriction and the necessity of this restriction? What is the subject of restriction and what is the aim of restriction? M. M. Kovaleva gives no one answer. At last everybody knew that there are different states (including totalitarian), different societies and parts of society (including different criminal social groups like Mafia who also can try to control information.

V. I. Kharlamov stressed co-influence of censorship and culture, especially the impact of culture upon censorship which was named by him "the great reverse act of culture". However he was not able to give any one example of such act. He insisted vehemently that, owing to censorship, Russian literature had become so splendid and sophisticated in styles of thinking and of writing, that Russian literature was brought up by censorship and Russian literary language is the consequence of censorship [15]. The conclusion is evident: contemporary Russian literature also needs censorship for its flourishing. At the same time he stated that any kind of censorship is a permicious, and he felt fear when some reporters approach to the rehabilitation of censorship in their reports.

V. A. Babintsev supports positive interpretation of censorship stating that a sound thought about the inevitability and necessity of censorship will be considered as negative until the notion "censorship" is associated with its totalitarian distortion. The reason for such conclusion is his paradoxical statement that there was no censorship at all in Stalinist Russia because censorship is the notion of legal regulation, and Stalinist "censorship" was absolutely un-legal phenomenon. He himself is against broad interpretation of censorship when this term of legal sphere is used for analyzing of some phenomenon of other spheres [16]. According to him Stalinist totalitarian system did not need censorship with its classic division at preliminary and post-censorship or punitive one as it was replaced by repression. But saying that all set of bodies from Glavlit to the department of Central Committee had "exclusively punitive function of censorship" [17] he contradict himself even from linguistic point of view as he used word "censorship".

As an instance confirming his thought that state has to improve censorship, to transform it in accordance with historical conditions, social and cultural situations L. M. Makushin used the historical experience of pre-reform period of 1855-1859 the main result of which was the foundation of special secret committee on publishing under submission of the emperor Alexander II. The positive sense of this Committee 1858 was the idea of establishing of special separate ministry of censorship which was not realized during reforms of 60s [18]. L. M. Makushin himself recognized however that Alexander II wanted to have only managed press which would be the support and means to extend his influence and power, and did not want to have an initiative of changes and an arbitrator in debate about the content of reforms and high authorities. Thus Alexander II wanted really only "his own" reforms, reforms in accordance with his interests, and not reforms of society for society. Therefore in this case censorship was indeed the instrument of management, but the management of only part of society, and very conservative part. It is known well that this kind of management along with other factors brought Russia to 1917.

It is evident that "censorship" in broad sense, of such unlimited kind works almost everywhere: in groups of very different social and political levels and types including such ones as children at kindergarten and family or religious sect and criminal gang. According to this approach the specificity of censorship is disappeared. Any prohibition to write, to say or to demonstrate something in any population is "censorship". One can say following this logic that "censorship" exist even among populations of monkey or wolves or social insects (like ants or bees). Thus broad approach is invalid: the cause is replaced by the consequence, the general is substituted by particular, etc.

Indications to the reanimation of censorship in Russia were made by some participants of conferences. V. A. Babintsev, for instance, stated that discussion of the theme of conference demonstrated a general accordance with fact "we are contemporaries of certain reanimation of censorship." [19]. He also marked the distinct withstanding of two interpretations: positive and negative. According to positive one censorial restrictions are an inevitable and necessary element of the vital activity of any society. According to negative one present changes are considered as step to restoration of total control, and an attempt to destroy or suppress fundamental liberties.

Such theoretical attempts to reanimate the necessity and positive meaning of censorship can be considered only as intellectual or academic exercises having no serious consequences. However it is well known how very distant theoretical and philosophical ideas were used not in the best way in history from time to time, especially when proper conditions were formed. Therefore current opinions of specialists on the situation with censorship in Russia and problems which can cause the restoration of censorship deserve an attention and a discussion.

In comparison with the USSR of last times now situation in different information fields is enough different but general tendency is a partial return to censorship in modified forms and the origin of new forms and kinds of censorship. S. A. Baburkin answering question about the tendency to come back to old, soviet system of secret information said that "vedomstva" [administrations] got a revenge for that time when they were under the fire of critique [20].

A. V. Doronin affirmed that the considerable part of archives documents is not declassified till now, and Zhdanov, Malenkov and other highest authorities papers are in the process of declassification. The problem is that the process of declassification which was started in 1990 then after two years was stopped, and almost nothing in this field was done since that time [21].

According to A. V. Blum now state censorship does not exist in Russia, but some elements of its system were preserved in modified forms. In 22 November 1991 Poltoranin signed the order on the reorganization of Glavlit (GUOT) into the regional inspection on the protection of information. The majority of former Glavlit (GUOT) staff continue to work in this "new" system or in new "democratic" institutes. For example, Solodin now work at the President's apparatus, and he was a legal adviser of "Glavkompechat'. Answering question A. V. Blum stressed that first of all it is necessary to say about state censorship as under state censorship there is no alternative possibility for information (to publish an article, for example, in another newspaper, journal, etc.).

By G. V. Zhirkov censorship continue to exist in Russia, but in new forms. Economic censorship acquire more and more meaning and power, and financial and commercial monopolies played main role in this process. The transformation of journalism into economically profitable affair turned journalists into self-censors [22]. This financial censorship has very different forms. One example: The cost price of newspaper is 2,5 milliard of rubles on condition that 10.000 copies are printed [23]. One can say about economic censorship of information for specialists in modern Russia. The expenses of researches in Russian archives for Russians were (and are) too high during about last ten years. A. V. Bl'um said that in 1988 the so called "khozraschet" was induced. As result only scholars who got Western grants have the opportunity to do such researches.

On another side, according to G. V. Zhirkov modern technology allow the editor to edit all texts. Actual kind of censorship is the fabrication of information, the creation of illusive reality.

G. V. Zhirkov also indicated three main problems of censorship: two ones of the history of censorship - external (i.e. foreign) influence, and the roots (very deep, ancient) of censorship in Russia, and third, actual one is the censorship of political, social and economic information which is much more important than the censorship of literature which was in the center of public and researchers' attention. Therefore no liberty of word, no possibility to create in Russia is like a scarecrow of boss for beating in Japan company. Contemporary censors are very important. They exist and they protect financial and commercial information. V. N. Ryabchuk stressed that in Russia at present the right of citizens to receive an information is determined not by Constitution, but by Council of Security.

L. M. Makushin affirmed that if Ministry of Censorship was founded no reform of censorship would be necessary. What now take place in Russia is not reforms, this is yet pre-reforms, and real, true reforms are ahead. However there is not even pre-reforms of censorship. Answering question about what kind of censorship, pre- or post-one will be in future Russia, he said that all kind of censorship will exist, and it has not to be any illusions.

T. M. Goryaeva said that at present each law or rule on mass media (of so called "information block') cover or contradict other one [24]. A. Voinov also said about several mines of Russian legislation: 1) first one is an access to information. The editorial board mainly, not journalist itself, has an access to information; 2) second one is the problem of founder of mass media. It is necessary to introduce guarantees or to delete founder totally; 3) third one is the problem of accreditation. It is more and more difficult to receive an accreditation. New tendency is an attempt to establish a state control upon information. Another danger is the wave of laws on the protection of public morality. Several such laws were adopted in different subjects of Russian Federation. The definitions of pornography and of erotic are given, and the special commission can be founded to prohibit pornographic editions or their distribution. These laws already operate. For example, some issues of "Playboy" magazine was confiscated in Krasnoyarsk.

A. K. Simonov proposed to separate 6 kinds of censorship in Russia:

• administrative,
• economic,
• criminal (exist in the whole world),
• censorship of editorial trend. This is new censorship number 1,
• censorship of editorial style ("This is not the style of our newspaper"). This kind of censorship is everywhere, and it is normal,
• self-censorship. Today it determines trend and voice, and wealth of mass media. It is incapacity to say calmly. It is the same self-censorship as a duty to say with pathos [25].

M. M. Kovaleva indicated even several dangerous tendencies to limit the freedom of information in modern Russia. First one is the aspiration both mass media and authorities to reunification. For example, president established his own newspaper "Rossiiskie Vesti" [Russian News], Supreme Council founded its "Rossiiskaya Gazeta" [Russian Newspaper] which was took off by Government later, and so on. Now more than 75 % of municipal and regional newspapers have bodies of executive power as its owners. Thus authorities or more exactly executive authorities control two third of mass media including TV and radio stations. Second one is the imperfection of "Law on mass media" approved in December 1991. Article 3 of this law state "the inadmissibility of censorship", but factually it means only the inadmissibility of preliminary censorship and all other kinds of censorship are out of the action of this law. It is not accidental that already after the approval of this law the publishing of some editions was stopped and some TV programs were not allowed. As result there are a few of private magazines, journals, TV and radio stations the owners of which would be individuals or some financial or industry groups as it was in the second half of XIXth century in Russia. Third one is the inaccuracy of definitions and sanctions of laws of "information block", for example, of "Law on state secret" [26].

Thus the survey of current opinions demonstrate that the situation with censorship is still far of satisfactory. There are several points of potential recreation of censorship which can become a powerful reality. Besides some specific problems can assist this process.

Among these problems some ones are especially important because their origin is considered by many as "an opposite side of medal" which is the freedom from totalitarism including the freedom from censorship. Besides New Information Technologies also can be used as the pretext for New Introduction of Censorship. The costs of the liberty of word at present Russia consist mainly of the costs in two information fields: 1) in mass media, and 2) in studies.

According to G. V. Zhirkov contemporary Russian TV has many negative traits which factually destroy Russian culture; for example, in accordance of Russian tradition the so called "intim" was not protrude, exposed [27]. T. M. Goryaeva complain of that some politicians, public and statesmen, and other writers and journalists find the causes of the crisis of Russian culture in the loss of censorship [28]. O. N. Myaeots predicted that on the way to democratic society Russia will have all kinds of diseases which the West had [29]. The symptoms of future ailment are already noticeable. They are: the offensive of mass culture, the loss of literary and artistic mastery, etc. The wish of parents to protect they children against all kind of this "pulp culture" is natural under these conditions. It seems for many that a simple and true way is to cancel, to forbid, at last to conceal for the welfare of their children, young people, women, society, Russia.

According to N. Yu. Cherepenina the expenses of the liberty of word in studies are: 1) the publication of false information or misinformation; 2) the extremely tendentiousness of the selection of materials for publication; 3) the lack of commentary, carelessness, the rejection of archeographic elaboration including the titles; 4) verbal reproduction of original texts including orthographic mistakes.

At the same time the tendency of returning to closed condition of information increase. N. Yu. Cherepenina, for instance, affirmed strongly that many if not all former party and KGB archives (for example, the archive of Leningrad 'obkom' in Smolnyi, KGB regional archive in St.Petersburg, etc.) became again "closed" that is the access to the most of papers is restricted or even impossible again. According to G. V. Zhirkov many researches on censorship in Russia have the politicized character and this peculiarity caused the set of bad or/and weak traits of such politicized studies: a tendentiousness, a simplification, a bad reasoning, politicizing, unbalanced estimations. etc. As an example he mentioned the exaggeration of the role of Bolshevik's "Decree on Press" of 1918 [30].

New Information Technologies, especially Internet are often considered now as the main source of two new global dangers for Russia: the danger for its safety and the danger of new virtual totalitarism, and for both reasons can be used as the pretext for New Introduction of Censorship. According to M. M. Kovaleva XXI century is the century of Internet censorship [31]. A. N. Lopatin said that a special seminar on Internet in Russia was planned to hold in State Duma in December 1996 [32]. Many other examples of troubles because of Internet domination can be added easily. And in all these cases a censorship against Internet is proposed as means, and at least an access to Internet in Russia has to be under control of "society".

The broad approach, as it was shown above, had two substantiation’s: empirical and theoretical, connected partly with each other. An empirical one has double type: historical and actual. Historical ground consisted mainly in arguing that owing to the censorship the Great Russian literature reached its flourishing and greatness, especially the richness of language, styles and expressiveness. Actual ground consisted of different statements that Internet is indeed the powerful instrument of enslaveness of Russians and the new kind of washing out their brains. The theoretical ground defined roughly consisted in a statement that censorship is simply a factor of social selection and control, one of many usual elements of information and social management.

One could almost suppose that these views were defended by former concealed representatives of the party apparatus at universities and at the Academy of Sciences, or by new born Russian nationalists and statesmen (gosudarstvenniki), but this is not the case. For example, one of researchers from Moscow, V. I. Kharlamov (who could not be suspected loving the soviet past) defended it. This trend to reanimate a censorship is supported by some theoreticians of mass media, by social and political philosophers, by representatives of deputy body and state apparatus including FSB, and by historians of journalism and Russian literature.

Summing up once more one can say that upholders of broad conception of censorship want to bring up to the conclusions that:

• censorship is natural and almost eternal phenomenon; it exist in the most, if not in all, societies, and it is usual mechanism of the control and regulation of information;
• the general tendency of modern development of censorship is a transition from state censorship to public censorship, but the state has to assist this new public censorship;
• contemporary circumstances of Russian reforms and realities of New Information Technologies make inevitable and irreversible the necessity of introduction of new censorship of XXI century.

However as it has been said above these conclusions have not sufficient arguments, historical and actual data. Although it is true that society need some kind of regulation of information, it must not be just censorship. As it seems to me it is not necessary to prove this point, but because there are some real problems belonging to "information field" it has to be said, at least briefly, about another than censorship solutions of these problems.

Under unfavorable conditions of life in contemporary Russia for many people defense of moral and cultural values by means of a prohibition and a concealment seems acceptable and desirable. The answer can be and have to be not the prohibition, not censorship any kind, but an assistance and a creative and hard work. Attempts to reanimate censorship in this or that form in Russia will not stop tomorrow or in near future. It is necessary and salutary to continue studies on the history of censorship and modern problems of the freedom of information, on new dangerous tendencies.

1. Konashev M. B., ed. Svoboda Nauchnoi Informatsii I Ohkrana Gosudarstvennoi Tainy [The Freedom of Scientific Information and the Protection of State Secret].- Leningrad, 1991.; Konashev M. B., ed. Na podstupakh k spetskhranu [On the approaches to Spetskhran].- St. Petersburg, 1995.; Konashev M. B., ed. Tsenzura v Rossii: Istoriya I Sovremennost' [Censorship in Russia: History and Modernity].- St. Petersburg, 1995.; senzura v tsarskoi Rossii i Sovetskom Souize [Censorship in Tsarist Russia and Soviet Union. (Proceedings of conference held in Moscow 24-27 May 1993. Edited by T.V.Gromova)].- Moscow: Rudomino, 1995. See also brief reviews of conferences on censorship in St. Petersburg: Konashev M. B. and Orlov S. A. Tsenzura v Rossii: Istoriya I Sovremennost'. Konferentsiya v Sankt-Peterburge. [Censorship in Russia: History and Modernity. The conference in St. Petersburg].- Otechestvennaya istoriya [The native history], 1996. no. 6. pp. 204-205; Konashev M. B. and Krementsov N. L. Kak i chem izmeryaetsa sekretnost'?.- Voprosy Istorii Estestvoznaniia I Tekhniki. [By what and how is secrecy measured?.- Issues in the History of Science and Technology], 1992. N. 2. pp. 155-156.
2. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg. See also: Blum A. V. Zakat Glavlita: Razrushenie sistemy sovetskoi tsenzury.- Tsenzura v Rossii: Istoriya I Sovremennost' [The end of Glavlit: the destruction of Soviet censorship' system.- In: Censorship in Russia: History and Modernity].- St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 9-10.
3. Tsenzura v Rossii. [Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 1.
4. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg.
5. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg. See also: Kovaleva M. M. Rossiiskaya tsenzura v periody glasnosti. Tsenzura v Rossii: Istoriya I Sovremennost' [Censorship in the periods of 'glasnost'.- In: Censorship in Russia: History and Modernity].- St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 23-24; Levchenko I. E. Tsensura kak sociokul'turnyi phenomen. [Censorship as an socio-cultural phenomenon].- ibid, pp. 29-30; Makushin L. M. Tsenzura kak element gosudarstvennoi vlasti. [Censorship as the element of state power].- ibid, pp. 35-36.
6. Kovaleva M. M. Tsenzura i sredstva massovoi inormatsii.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Censorship and mass media. Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p.8.
7. The record of seminar on the history of censorship ("Capital and censorship: history and modernity") which was held at the department of the history of journalism, St. Petersburg University,, 23 April 1998, St. Petersburg.
8. Kovaleva M. M. Tsenzura i sredstva massovoi inormatsii.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Censorship and mass media. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 9.
9. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg.
10. Makushin L. M. Tsenzura v preddverii politicheskikh reform 60-kh godov XIX veka.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Censorship on the threshold of political reforms of 60s in XIX century. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 48.
11. Myaeots O. N. Detskaya literatura i tsenzura.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Literature for children and censorship.- Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 93.
12. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg.
13. Kovaleva M. M. Tsenzura i sredstva massovoi inormatsii.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Censorship and mass media. Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 9
14. Kovaleva M. M. Tsenzura i sredstva massovoi inormatsii.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Censorship and mass media. Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 11.
15. Kharlamov V. I. Tsenzura v kontekste russkoi kul'tuty: neissledovannyi aspekt. V: Tsenzura v Rossii: Istoriya I Sovremennost' [Censorship in the context of Russian culture: unstudied aspect.- In: Censorship in Russia: History and Modernity].- St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 56-57.; Kharlamov state, for example: "The censorship was an organic phenomenon for Russia, for Russian society. To say the censorship is a bad thing, is so empty as to say: "Russia is a bad country (and opposite too: "Russia is a good country") (ibid, p. 56).
16. Babintsev V. A. Victor Serge- svidetel' epokhi "napravlyaemoi literatury".- Tsenzura v Rossii. ["Victor Serge - the witness of epoch of "directed literature".- Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 86.
17. Babintsev V. A. Victor Serge- svidetel' epokhi "napravlyaemoi literatury".- Tsenzura v Rossii. ["Victor Serge - the witness of epoch of "directed literature".- Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 88.
18. Makushin L. M. Tsenzura v preddverii politicheskikh reform 60-kh godov XIX veka.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Censorship on the threshold of political reforms of 60s in XIX century. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 51-52.
19. Babintsev V. A. Victor Serge- svidetel' epokhi "napravlyaemoi literatury".- Tsenzura v Rossii. ["Victor Serge - the witness of epoch of "directed literature".- Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 85.
20. The record of the conference "Civic society: historical and philosophical roots, real practise, perspectives", 30 June- 2 July 1998, Pushkin.
21. The record of the conference "Kalter krieg: Erziehung, Bildung, Wissenschaft. Die strategische und politische Konzeptualisiezung und Realisierung im Ost-West Konflikt", 24-26 Juni 1998, Halle, Deutschland (German).
22. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg.
23. The record of seminar on the history of censorship ("Capital and censorship: history and modernity") which was held at the department of the history of journalism, St.Petersburg University,, 23 April 1998, St. Petersburg.
24. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg. On financial forms of censorship see also: Zhirkov's introductory speech at the seminar on the history of censorship which was held at the department of the history of journalism, St. Petersburg University, 27 November 1996.
25. The record of the International seminar "Mass media of post-totalitarian states", 26-28 October 1996, St. Petersburg.
26. Kovaleva M. M. Tsenzura i sredstva massovoi inormatsii.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Censorship and mass media. Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 10.
27. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg.
28. Goryaeva T. M. Kul'tura i tsenzura: mify i real'nost'.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Culture and censorship: myths and reality.- Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 27.
29. Myaeots O. N. Detskaya literatura i tsenzura.- Tsenzura v Rossii. [Literature for children and censorship.- Censorship in Russia. Proceedings of International conference held in Ekaterinburg 14-15 November 1995].- Ekaterinburg. 1996. p. 94.
30. The record of the discussion at conference "Censorship in Russia: history and modernity", 20-22 September 1995, St. Petersburg.; See also Zhirkov's introductory speech at the seminar on the history of censorship which was held at the department of the history of journalism, St. Petersburg University, 27 November 1996.
31. The record of seminar on the history of censorship ("Capital and censorship: history and modernity") which was held at the department of the history of journalism, St. Petersburg University, 23 April 1998, St. Petersburg.
32. The record of the International seminar "Mass media of post-totalitarian states", 26-28 October 1996, St. Petersburg.