Таганка: личное дело одного театра.
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.
A detailed transcript of the discussion of the performance of Yu.P. Lyubimov in the official state institution shows one of the stages of passing the theatrical performance through the Soviet censorship. The discussion is attended by: B. Pokarzhevsky, M. Miringof, and others (from the Mossovet); director of the theatre Yu. P. Lyubimov, historian of literature A. Anikst, philosopher V. Nazarov (from the theater).
This article examines the recent media reform in Turkmenistan and argues that the purpose newly enacted media legislation was to present the illusion of democratic change in the country.
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.