ready appeal to Roskomnadzor
Today, many are faced with blocked access to popular Internet resources, and this number is likely to grow. The government, the State Duma and other bodies seem to believe that citizens do not have the right to think differently than is dictated to them. If you want to exercise your rights enshrined in the Constitution, then you are branded as a “liberal” or “the litter of the West.”
As a result, we lose access to information necessary for work, study or communication with friends. If you are tired of excessive censorship and want to restore your right to a free internet, this post is for you.
Filtering Internet traffic violates citizens' constitutional rights to information and freedom of expression. The current measures are excessive, restricting access even to those resources that do not violate the law. For example, the Ministry of Digital Development is already developing a domestic analogue of GitHub. For what? Probably to block international platforms. And I wouldn’t be surprised if they later find an excuse to block other resources under the guise of the fight against drugs, terrorism or pedophilia.
It is important to draw a conclusion here: blocking Internet resources not only violates our rights to access information enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but also threatens freedom of expression. We should not be deprived of access to platforms just because someone once published prohibited content on them. Most Internet users are adults, capable citizens, capable of independently deciding what information to receive.
The exception, of course, should be resources that call for violence, drug propaganda, child pornography, separatism and other crimes. But why should we lose access to platforms if we are interested in completely different information? The excuse of “protecting children” is too often used to cover up the real goal of controlling the Internet.
I suggest using a ready-made template for contacting Roskomnadzor. This is a completely legal way to assert your rights. One appeal may not change the situation, but a massive one is quite capable of moving the problem forward. If this doesn't work, the next step is to go to court, which is also a legal method.
Don't be left out. Together we can reclaim our right to free access to the Internet. Remember, inaction will definitely not bring results. I have already sent my appeal, and I encourage you to do the same.
To do this, go to the Roskomnadzor website, select the “Appeals” section (top right):
https://rkn.gov.ru/treatments/ask-question/
In the subject of the appeal, select “Internet sites / Other”, fill out the form and attach a file with the text of the appeal.
On ending the blocking of Internet resources
Dear Sirs,
I am hereby [ФИО]I am writing to you with a demand to stop the excessive blocking of Internet resources using TSPU tools and opening access to them only through my IP address, with the exception of those resources that call for violence, murder, destruction and hatred, the distribution of drugs, children pornography, separatism, suicide. My appeal is based on the rights and freedoms guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and other legislative acts of the Russian Federation, including the Federal Law “On the Mass Media” (No. 2124-1 of December 27, 1991, as amended on March 11, 2024).
The principle of proportionality and purposefulness.
Proportional and targeted restriction is a legal principle that is applied when limiting the rights and freedoms of citizens, including the right to access information. This principle requires that any restriction be:
Proportional (or commensurate) – this means that the measure of restriction must be adequate and consistent with the purpose for which it is applied. The restriction must not be excessive and must be the minimum necessary to achieve the particular legitimate aim. For example, if the goal is to protect public order or prevent the spread of illegal information, then the measure should concern specifically those materials that violate the law, and not the entire platform or resource where the information is posted.
Example: Instead of blocking the entire social network Facebook because of individual posts inciting violence, a proportional restriction would be to remove or block those specific posts and the accounts that spread them.
Targeted means that the measure must be aimed specifically at the threat or violation that needs to be eliminated. The restriction should not affect the entire platform or all users if the problem is related to a specific piece of content or a specific group of users. It must be as specific as possible and only address content or behavior that violates the law.
Example: The Discord platform was blocked in Russia due to isolated cases of violations related to the distribution of prohibited content. Instead of restricting access only to these specific servers or channels, Roskomnadzor is forced to block the entire platform, since it is technically unable to block individual pages or sections. As a result, millions of users who use Discord for legitimate purposes – to communicate, study or work – are losing access to important resources. This is a violation of the principle of proportionality in regulation, as well as our Constitutional Right to free information.
In addition, citizens with full legal capacity should be able to independently choose which Internet resources they can use. This includes the Right to refuse excessive filtering and blocking, which corresponds to the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Government blocking measures should not violate the right of citizens to access information, especially if it is not related to illegal activities.Why are these principles needed?
Proportionality protects against excessive measures that may restrict more rights than necessary to achieve the goal.
Targeting ensures that restrictive measures affect only those parts that actually threaten the law or public safety, without harming other users or information.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 55) establishes that any restrictions on the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are permissible only to the extent necessary to protect other rights and interests provided for by law. Measures to block Internet resources must be proportional to the purpose of their use. In my case, these measures do not take into account the fact that I am an adult citizen with full legal capacity, and I do not need the protection intended, for example, for minors.
My access to Internet resources is blocked due to excessive, untargeted measures that violate the principle of proportionality. For an adult, legally capable citizen, such measures limit the possibility of obtaining information, which is a violation of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which establishes the right to freedom of information.
Freedom to receive information (Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation): The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees everyone the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information by any legal means. Restricting access to social networking and video hosting platforms directly violates this right unless the information users want to access is prohibited by law. Blocking resources in general, rather than specific prohibited content, contradicts the constitutional guarantee of the right to access information.
Any restrictions on rights must be proportionate and adequate to the goal set (Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Blocking an entire service (such as Meta or YouTube) when certain material may actually violate the law goes beyond proportionality. Russian legislation does not require blocking the entire platform if prohibited content is posted on it – it is possible and necessary to restrict access to illegal materials, and not to the entire service.
Necessity and feasibility
Any restrictions, including filtering of Internet resources, must not only be justified, but also necessary to protect the rights of other persons (Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Protecting children from harmful information is an important task, but these measures must be aimed at a specific target group – minors. Internet users, including those with full legal capacity, should be able to control their own access to content, rather than being limited by blanket filters that may be designed to protect minors.
Federal Law “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development” (No. 436-FZ dated December 29, 2010): This law regulates the protection of children from harmful information, but at the same time provides limited measures for such purposes. It states that blocking of information should be aimed at protecting children specifically, and not all users indiscriminately. Adults, with full legal capacity as citizens, in turn, should have the freedom to choose which resources they access without facing excessive filtering aimed at protecting another group of the population, with the exception of access to information that calls for violence, murder, destruction, hatred, distribution of drugs, child pornography, separatism, suicide.
Filtering and blocking of resources, which does not take into account the status of a citizen and blocks access to information and resources on which they are located, for all users without exception, is redundant and impractical.
Thus, the justification for the need and expediency of limiting information is associated with constitutional provisions and federal laws, which require that any restrictions be proportional, consistent with the goals set and applied strictly within the framework of the law, including constitutional rights and Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Principle of individualization
According to Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, all citizens are equal before the law and the court. Restrictions on access to information should be applied taking into account the individual characteristics of the user, which is important in the context of filtering Internet traffic. Applying the same filters to all citizens, regardless of their age and legal status, violates the principle of individualization of measures. As an adult with full legal capacity, I have no need for content filtering designed, for example, to protect minors.
This principle is enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal legislation.
The principle of individualization is associated with several aspects:
Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 19 (Equality of Rights) – All citizens are equal before the law and the court, but this equality implies that the same measures are not always applicable to all citizens to the same extent. The important idea is that equal rights include the right to take into account individual differences. This means that restrictions or legal measures must be proportionate to the situation and take into account the legal status of each person.
Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 55 (Restriction of Rights) – Says that restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens are permissible only in cases where it is necessary to protect the constitutional foundations. This supports the idea that not all restrictions can be applied equally to all citizens – their application must be justified by specific circumstances.
Federal Law “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development” dated December 29, 2010 N 436-FZ – This law introduces differentiation of access to information for children and adults, thereby supporting the idea of individualization, which, in turn, implies the need to separate measures for different age categories.
Law No. 436-FZ enshrines the principle of a differentiated approach to the protection of children, which in turn is an argument that adult citizens do not need the same filtering as minors. This highlights the importance of taking into account the user's legal status when applying restrictions.
Exceeding permissible legal grounds
Existing legal norms allow information to be blocked in certain cases (for example, calls for violence, distribution of child pornography, drug trafficking, suicide). However, these measures must be justified, targeted, and applied only to specific types of information that violate the law, and not apply to the entire resource.
Filtering Internet traffic, which affects all users indiscriminately and blocks entire resources due to the presence of prohibited content, violates the principle of proportionality and contradicts the right to receive information enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The application of the same measures to all citizens with full legal capacity, without taking into account their age, legal status and real threat, violates legal principles and does not correspond to the principle of individualization.
The Federal Law “On the Mass Media” (Article 4) indicates that information blocking can only be applied to strictly defined categories of prohibited information, and not to the resource as a whole, with which a citizen with full legal capacity has the right to interact in accordance with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Blocking such resources is excessive and violates my right to freely choose Internet resources, platforms and receive information.
As written above, according to the law (Federal Law “On the Mass Media”, Article 4), blocking should concern specific materials, and not entire platforms. For example, Meta may be limited in its activities for calls for violence, but this does not mean that absolutely all of its services should be blocked if the remaining content does not contradict Russian laws. The same goes for YouTube: a platform cannot be blocked for refusing to unblock certain channels if it contains a huge amount of legal and neutral content.
Conclusion: Restricting access to all Meta services (Instagram, Facebook) and YouTube video hosting in response to actions or content that violate the law violates the rights of users, unless this is a proportionate and targeted restriction. Blocking entire platforms contradicts the principle of freedom of information and the prohibition of censorship. This can be considered an excessive restriction of rights and a violation of the principles of Russian legislation.
Blockings must be targeted and justified, and filtering must not violate the rights of a citizen who has full legal capacity.
Freedom of information and prohibition of censorship
Freedom to receive information is a fundamental right of a citizen of the Russian Federation, guaranteed by Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The Federal Law “On the Mass Media” (Article 2) establishes that the mass media operate on the basis of the principles of freedom and are not subject to restrictions, except in cases expressly provided for by law. Blocking Internet resources without sufficient legal grounds is actually a form of censorship, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Prohibition of censorship (Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation): The Constitution directly prohibits censorship, that is, preliminary restriction of information or control over its dissemination. Blocking entire social networks and video hosting sites can be interpreted as a form of hidden censorship if it is aimed at limiting citizens' access to multiple sources of information. This becomes especially relevant when access to foreign platforms is closed based on the actions of certain groups or users of these platforms.
Principle of equality and discrimination
According to Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, all citizens of the Russian Federation are equal before the law. If Internet resources are blocked without taking into account the age and individual characteristics of the user, the principle of equality is violated. For me, as an adult citizen with full legal capacity, content filtering measures aimed at minors are discriminatory. They restrict my right to access information and violate the principle of equality.
And also, blocking services such as YouTube, Meta and other social networks, based on specific reasons related to the foreign policy situation, can lead to discrimination against Russian users, since they are denied the right to access information, unlike users in other countries where these platforms remain available.
Such blockings should be considered as an indirect restriction of access to legal information for citizens of the Russian Federation in comparison with citizens of other countries, which violates the principles of international law.
Analogy with the right to refuse medical intervention
According to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, every person has the right to refuse medical intervention. This enshrined right shows that every citizen with full legal capacity has freedom of choice in matters relating to his life, health and personal preferences. Likewise, adult citizens should have the right to independently choose what content they want to consume, as long as this content does not call for violence, murder, destruction and hatred, the distribution of drugs, child pornography, or separatism.
Filtering content according to general “children's” standards for all users, regardless of their age, is a violation of this principle of freedom of choice. As an adult citizen, I have every right to control my information environment and decide for myself what resources to access.
Conclusion
Based on the above, I ask you to stop blocking Internet resources at my IP address, with the exception of those that call for violence, murder, destruction, hatred, the distribution of drugs, child pornography, separatism, and suicide. I believe that the existing filtering measures are excessive and violate my constitutional rights to freedom of information (Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) and the principle of equality (Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). In addition, they contradict the established right to freedom of choice, similar to the right to refuse medical intervention.
I ask you to consider my appeal within 30 days and restore access to Internet resources, with the exception of those resources that directly call for violence, murder, destruction, hatred, the distribution of drugs, child pornography, separatism, and suicide. If you refuse, I will exercise my legal Constitutional right to appeal your decision in court.
Sincerely,
[ФИО]
PS Based on the experience of communicating with people at DTF, I would like to add.
As it turned out, in order to start taking action, the most difficult thing was to get through the crowds of people or bots who kept repeating “You will achieve nothing, who are you all?” and so on.
But there were many more people supporting me. I hope that there will be as many people here who share this point of view. Why? Because all of you here are very closely connected with the Internet space, and the freedom in it, which is becoming less and less every day, and will become even less.
You shouldn't hope that everything will work out on its own.
It will be settled, it will be settled every day, without our intervention.
Because we are silent, and since we are silent it means we agree.
This resource is mostly intended for people in the IT field. For those for whom freedom of Internet space is as important as air.
Therefore, all of us who have already written an appeal hope for your support.
Don’t think that VPN will help, no, at this rate they will introduce administrative and then criminal liability for their use. Don't believe me? Look back at what has happened over the past 5 years.
I also attach links to posts on other resources:
