Кино, цензура и власть в Петербурге-Петрограде 1890-1910-х годов
In the 1910s, cinema censorship traditions and rules varied in different Russian provinces, leading to widespread discussion of the whole topic. The article focuses on censorship practices in the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary capital, Petersburg / Petrograd. It investigates censorship documents of the 1910s, discusses the influence of World War I on Petrograd censorship, and draws attention to the revolutionary period of 1917 when the relationship between cinema and government became extremely strained.
The chapter examines the origins of Jewish pogroms during the Civil War in Russia (1918-1921), shows the genetic connection between the "military pogroms" of the World War I and pogroms of the Civil War. Among other issues, the article analyzes the motive of a "shot in the back" as a pretext for pogroms.
The collection of papers written by Slavic philologists, (cultural and art) historians, philosophers is devoted to the 100th anniversary of WWI and traces its reflections and references in European culture of the XX-XXI c.
What is the theatre of the Soviet state? This is the theatre, forced to live on the State rules. Theatre, clamped in a vise of the censorship machine. Why prohibited performances? Not because that found in them something seditious... The state feared theatre. Afraid of the art of the original, unexpected, beyond, such as in the Theatre on Taganka. Reading censorship documents, one cannot understand how the theatre lived and put the new performances. Helped support of the audience.
Protocols discussions performances officials and unique Artistic Council of the theater , the letters to the head of state and senior officials, article theater, notes spectators and other documents tell about the bright fate of the Taganka. A significant part of the documents is published for the first time.
The idea of this paper appeared after the workshop on ‘Human Rights on the Internet: Legal Frames and Technological Implications’, organized by the Higher School of Economics on 7th Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in Baku (Azerbaijan) on November 2012. This paper shows importance of the trilateral Internet Governance model in context of the example of governmental insufficiency to control the Internet.
Internet technologists contribute to the practical realization of human rights. First of all, they can improve effectiveness of existing institutions. Unfortunately in the same time Internet technologies give rise to new mechanisms of human rights violations. So we need to create new means, new technologies for human rights protection. We need new technological means, identification and classification of violations, based on predictive analytics. But to improve the situation, we should improve the existing means, and build new models of communication. Perhaps such models could be based on the concept of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0.