Discussions about freedom of creativity have been known since ancient times - Plato spoke about the need for censorship in art. Today, creative freedom is a constitutional right and it is inextricably linked with such concepts as intellectual property and copyright.

We will talk about how freedom and creativity relate today, about the problems of modern copyright law with the editor-in-chief of the anthology “Young Petersburg”, a member of the Writers' Union of Russia, poet, critic Alexei Akhmatov.

What is your understanding of creative freedom? Should it be aimed only at the free emancipation of the artist himself (freedom of expression)?

There is no freedom in creativity at all. Freedom, as I have often said, is an extremely insufficient word. Freedom is a complete absence of meaning, ideas, structure, which is what a person inherently gravitates towards. Freedom can only be with the pretext OT. Free from the tyranny of power, for example. Free from remorse, free from obligations, free from drug addiction. As you can see, you can be free from something in both a positive and negative sense. But it is impossible to be completely free from everything. This is the lot of an idiot. The monkey on the branch is quite free in its actions, and even then, if we delve into its needs and living conditions, it will turn out to be wildly unfree. Clerics often talk about freedom of choice - but this is not freedom at all. Do evil and burn in hell forever, do good and be blessed indefinitely. This is freedom? In my opinion, this is a vice worse than any dictatorship.

Returning to the freedom of creativity (we are talking about high burning), I will note that the more creativity, the less freedom there is. The more freedom, the less creativity of any kind. I think it's obvious. The creativity of great masters is always self-denial, submission to the colossal burden of artistic necessity, responsibility, following the material, struggle with it and a flexible union... The artist is always a slave of harmony. Where is there still room for some kind of freedom?

By and large, creativity is not tied to the specific liberation of the creator himself or his connoisseurs. Creativity is a search for beauty, hard but joyful work aimed at human self-improvement. This has nothing to do with freedom.

How to deal with responsibility? Should an artist be responsible for his or her work?

To summarize, the artist is not free, and he bears direct and full responsibility for his creation. Like any person, he is responsible for everything he has done or not done in his life.

That's how the world works. He is deeply not free. It exists only by the power of the laws of physics, the laws of nature. And freedom is... the absence of law. And without law there is no world. Everything, from molecules to red giants, is subject to them. Why, if freedom does not exist in the world, should it exist in creativity?

Alexey Dmitrievich, if creativity turned out to be in tune with the times and found public recognition, then do such works belong to the creator himself or do they belong to society?

Let's talk not about what is, but about what we would like. The work belongs to the creator until he makes it public under certain conditions. If these conditions are not specifically stated and discussed, the work is sent to float freely throughout the country and people. If he initially demands to publish it only with his knowledge and on his terms - then, of course, this is his right.

Let's say you posted your poem on Facebook. I liked it and reposted it. Two dozen people each read them for you and me. Nothing. And then a person with several hundred thousand subscribers came and also reposted it. All! You wake up famous. The country has read you. Should I sue him? The intellectual property is yours. You wrote it... but you published it. All. It's gone!

Of course, there are many nuances here. The author is paid for what he writes. He lives for it. To abolish copyright altogether means dooming the creator, if not to hunger, then at least to the need to earn something else. It is not right. To leave it as it is means to create other injustices towards the author, of which, believe me, there are no less! One of them is the very common inability to reach the reader at all.

Recently I was told the following case: the heiress of Gumilyov’s works (even without being a relative by blood, but being the legal copyright holder of his heritage) filed a lawsuit against the Pushkin House, which was preparing the complete collection of the poet’s works. Apparently, she wanted money that the institute didn’t have. Only one or two volumes were published. This was serious scientific work. However, a relative vetoed it... and that was it. The meeting failed. That is, one small, meaningless (to be specific, meaningless in literature) man destroyed the work of an entire scientific department and deprived a huge country of acquaintance with the full heritage of the great poet. How is that? Well, that's nonsense, right?

Stanislav Kunyaev said that he had collected a weighty collection of poems by the best famous poets of the 20th century, with dedications to Soviet leaders. I took it from open sources. Everything has been published a long time ago. He encountered fierce opposition from his relatives and was forced to stop the project.

It looks completely indecent when descendants do not allow the works of their eminent ancestors to be published, trying to rewrite history or make the latter appear as “martyrs of the regime.” I would like to ask by what right, or rather, arbitrariness, people who devoted their strength and lives to those ideals that seemed to them the only correct ones should vegetate in oblivion, for the sake of self-interested grandchildren who have not experienced even a tenth of what they once had to the share of those who, in fact, ensured their current prosperity? The works were not only written. They were published. Mass circulation. The writers then received huge amounts of money for them, as well as the fame and honor due to them. It belongs to the people, the country, but not to any private individual.

Probably the most logical thing would be to abolish inherited copyright. If the creator himself still has the right (and then within certain limits) to dispose of his text, then children have nothing to do with the thoughts, deeds, or aspirations of their fathers and grandfathers. They have their own experience, their own views and ideas about the world. Why would they be afraid to determine what should be reprinted and what should be outgrown? Let me clarify - we are talking about intellectual work that has already been published and paid for (of course, they have the right to burn the manuscript found in the attic, since no one knows about it). The moral side of such an act is another matter.

It is enough that they dispose of irons, houses, cars and dachas, if any were left by their famous relative, having earned it all, by the way, precisely on their intellectual property.

Copyright contributes to the income of masters of art and culture. How much the creator’s earnings contribute to the development of culture itself is a controversial issue. Of course, I want the master to receive decent fees and not unload the cars while Pushkin can be cast in bronze. On the other hand, we rarely see a good artist well-fed. Money was never even the least determining factor... Tolstoy was rich, Dostoevsky was in need all his life. Which one is bigger?

The issue may not only come down to money. For example, a writer published an immature, juvenile, or even simply downright stupid work and he is ashamed of it 20 - 30 years later. He is against reprinting it anywhere. Does he have the right to do this? After all, this is his work, his brainchild. I am firmly convinced that it does not. Again, let's think logically - for example, you offended someone. You feel ashamed after a while. Do you have the right to prevent someone from remembering this action of yours? No. You only have the right to apologize or do something to compensate for the offense. So it is here. This is the responsibility of the creator for his word. It would not be bad if our poets and prose writers thought ten times about what they were publishing, contacted editors, and put their texts through artistic discussions and advice. This would definitely contribute to the development of literature.

But, to answer your question in general, modern copyright law does not fully contribute to the development of art and culture, and sometimes slows down such development. Of course, by and large, it should have been reworked. It is mandatory to remove the heirs, just as a class (for our son, as we know, is not responsible for his father)! Let them use the chests, suitcases and silverware left over from their ancestors. It is impossible to give the word into the hands of others (even family ones), just as it is impossible to pass on your thoughts, affections, passions, and relationships with people by inheritance. That is, it is possible to wish to convey something, but there is no way to oblige it to be carried out!

Well, think over a system of relations and contracts with public disclosure, publishing houses, etc. Otherwise, copyright will turn from a tool to protect the creator into the arbitrariness of the creator, as well as a flock of copyright holders, which is already turning against the artist himself.

This seems like such an obvious thing, but it is unlikely to be feasible in the near future.

General ideas about freedom. Dialectics of freedom and necessity. Freedom and human cognitive activity. Freedom of speech as the most important achievement and guarantor of a democratic society. The concept of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press and partisanship. The concept of censorship. Fundamentals of the liberal theory of press freedom and the conditions for its implementation. Freedom of creativity. Freedom of speech in the laws of developed countries

and international legal documents. The Constitution of Ukraine as a guarantee of freedom of the press and journalistic activity in our country

The desire for freedom is one of the essential attributes of a person. Freedom means the right to any activity, the consequences of which do not harm the natural and social environment. The concept of “activity” covers both physical, spiritual, and intellectual actions of a person. The concept of “damage” includes not only the infliction of physical or economic damage and losses to individuals and society as a whole, but also intangible activities aimed at restricting freedom, calls for violence, national or class intolerance, etc.

Freedom of activity in any field (including journalism) is manifested in the ability to set certain goals and fight for their implementation on the basis of free conscious choice and creative decision. With man's desire for freedom comes the development of science, art, and also journalism as an information activity that has a pronounced epistemological function. Freedom is inseparable from human cognitive activity, from creativity. In turn, creativity is possible only in conditions of freedom.

At the same time, it should be clearly understood that absolute freedom of human activity is impossible. A person is always limited:

1) laws of nature,

2) the laws of society, operating independently of the subject, as well as

3) the degree of one’s own subjective knowledge of these laws. Only action in accordance with the laws of nature and society makes

a person free and capable of achieving his goals. Freedom lies in the knowledge of necessity and in overcoming necessity on the basis of its knowledge. The Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) came up with the definition “Freedom is a conscious necessity,” which has become a catchphrase in the philosophical consciousness of mankind. Consequently, overcoming necessity is possible only with the help of knowledge of necessity. Liberty

1) is determined by the level of mastery of the laws of nature and society and their acceptance as conditions and boundaries of the subject’s activity;

2) it is impossible without desire and will, using the knowledge of laws and creatively applying them in practice, to create the most important values ​​for a person within the limits of necessity;

3) is achieved when the subject acts on universal human principles, strives to serve humanity, his people;

4) is guided by a sense of public responsibility in handling facts and their interpretations.

Any knowledge has at least two aspects:

1) knowledge of facts,

2) establishing connections between facts, understanding and explaining them.

These are like two floors of human cognitive activity. The cognitive process begins with the accumulation of knowledge about facts. But facts remain dead without a theory to explain them. In turn, any theory or concept can only be built on the basis of a solid and extensive factual base.

There are two main types of freedom:

1) economic, that is, freedom of labor, which allows a person to freely choose the sphere of application of his strengths and abilities; realize oneself as much as possible in socially useful work; implement your right to property over the products of your activities;

2) political, that is, freedom of belief, spiritual search, which is realized in the right to have, express and disseminate one’s views, opinions and ideas, and to openly take the side of one or another ideology.

Journalism is born at a certain stage historical development of humanity from the general composition of humanity to freedom, by a person's search for freedom, from the need to make information (that is, knowledge of facts and their interpretation) reach the broad masses.

The struggle for freedom of speech runs through the entire history of mankind, as the main condition for Social freedom, the main condition for ensuring the free development of man and building a democratic society. Today, freedom of speech is perceived as the greatest achievement of world civilization.

For journalism, freedom of speech must be considered in at least two aspects:

1) like freedom of the press and

2) as freedom of creativity.

Freedom of the press- is the right of citizens and their organizations to freely express their views through newspapers, magazines and other

AMI is a vital condition for full detection political content and social functions of the printed word.

Soviet sources defended the idea that only communist party membership is the prerequisite for freedom of the press. In D. S. Grigorash’s reference book “Journalism in Terms and Expressions” we read: “It is the communist party system that ensures this freedom, ensures the free expression of people’s thoughts and aspirations. (...) In an exploitative society there can be no freedom of speech, as well as freedom press. The slogan of freedom of the press on the lips of the bourgeoisie is completely false. (...) Real freedom of the press became possible as a result of the victory of the socialist revolution."

It is clear that in Soviet times not only the author of this reference book thought so, it was a generally accepted position of the Marxist ideological doctrine. It carefully concealed that the introduction of advanced social order, which was intended to make all citizens happy, turned into a permanent civil war the party in power with its people, cost these people millions of victims. Against this background, the dependence of the capitalist press “on the money bag of the bourgeoisie,” a dependence that in fact objectively exists, looked like a much lesser disaster than the dependence of the socialist press on party committees representing the party in power at different levels, on the ubiquitous censorship and on the threat of physical destruction through repression, examples of which fill the history of the Soviet press. Meanwhile, in the Soviet theory of journalism, the slogan of communist party membership served as a way to legalize and justify the complete rigid dependence of the press on the party.

The presence of censorship in the USSR was carefully hidden behind the innocuous name “State Committee for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press.” Not a single book, magazine, newspaper or other product for mass distribution could be published without the sanction of this committee.

Having seized power in the country through an armed uprising, the Russian Bolsheviks immediately resorted to persecution of free thought. On the second day after the coup d'etat, carried out on the night of October 25-26 (November 7-8), 1917, October 27 (November 9), the Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom), headed by V.I. Lenin, adopted a decree " About printing "("About printing"). The decree categorically stated: “Everyone knows that the bourgeois press is a powerful weapon of the bourgeoisie. Especially at a critical moment, when a new government, the power of workers and peasants, is just being established, it would be impossible to completely leave this weapon in the hands of the enemy, while it No less dangerous at such moments than bombs and machine guns. That is why temporary and emergency measures were taken to stop the flow of dirt and slander, in which the yellow and green press would willingly drown the young victory of the people."

The decree noted: the measures are temporary; As soon as the new order takes hold, “all administrative influences on the press will be stopped.” The administrative part of the decree stated: “Only press organs are subject to closure that: 1) call for open resistance or disobedience to the workers’ and peasants’ government. 2) sow confusion through clearly slanderous distortion of facts, 3) call for actions that are clearly criminal, that is, criminal.” persecuted character."

As a result of this decree, only in October 1917, that is, for five days, the Bolsheviks were in power, they closed 33 “bourgeois” and 4 “petty-bourgeois” newspapers, in November - 20 and 10, respectively, in December - 20 and 3 , in February 1918 - 16 and 13, in March - 3 and 14, in April - 13 and 22.

The decree ended with the words: “This provision is temporary and will be canceled by a special decree with the onset of normal conditions public life"Despite these repeated statements about the temporary effect of the decree, which indicated that the Council of People's Commissars itself understood its unnatural nature, it (the decree) was never canceled, its “cancellation by special decree" never came. This indicates that “normal conditions of social life" never came for the Bolsheviks. They were and remained forever a bunch of rebels, remained in the minority in their country and could only stay in power with weapons. Allowing freedom of speech for them was like death; that’s why it was never allowed in the Soviet Union did not have.

In January 1918, the Petrograd Soviet decided to provide the Commissariat for Printing Affairs with five copies of each work simultaneously with its release from the printing house for sale. And in 1919, not a single manuscript could be typed without the permission of the State Publishing House or its local authorities. So the next censorship was replaced by the previous, most cynical form.

Legislatively, the matter ended on June 6, 1922, with a government decision to create a Committee for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press, which in everyday life was called Glavlit (chief over literature) in the capital and obllit in the localities. The Council of People's Commissars no longer hesitated to use the concept of censorship quite officially, noting in the first paragraph of the resolution that the foundations of Glavlit were aimed at “unifying all types of censorship of printed works.” Glavlit was entrusted with the functions of previewing all periodical and non-periodical publications intended for printing. Since then, censorship in Soviet Russia, and then in the USSR, not only exists in fact, but also acquires legitimate, legal grounds.

Censorship is understood as systematic control over the activities of journalism and book publishing through constitutional, judicial, administrative, financial or purely physical measures carried out by the authorities or on its recommendations.

Censorship in a broad sense exists at all levels of society and mass communication. The position of censor was introduced in Ancient Rome. By the end of the 16th century. censorship was introduced in most European monarchies - in connection with the spread of printing.

Censorship is as old as the printing press. In 1485, that is, 35 years after the invention of printing by I. Gutenberg, all signs of church censorship appeared. IN German city The Cologne printing house was founded in 1469, and already in 1475 the first book was published with censorship permission from the local university. In 1559, the first list (index) of prohibited books, mandatory for the entire Roman Catholic Church, was published.

Subsequently, the history of the book and the history of journalism largely manifested itself through the struggle of various social forces for, on the one hand, the opportunity to fully inform the readership on a wide range of problems, and on the other hand, for curbing the press and restrictions on freely expressing one’s views and thoughts. The struggle for democratic freedoms necessarily included the demand for freedom of speech, and as society democratized, journalism became increasingly liberated from state pressure on it.

Today in the public consciousness there is a clear opinion: the presence of censorship is the first sign of a totalitarian political regime, the absence of censorship is a sign of a democratic way of organizing society. In all developed countries in the world, censorship is prohibited by law, and conflicts with the press are resolved by citizens and institutions (including government bodies) only in court.

Party journalism is always dependent on the party program, its leaders and governing bodies (committees). The fact that it is consciously dependent, as is traditionally emphasized in definitions of partisanship, does not change the matter essentially. If a party seizes power, party journalism serves the government. With the establishment of a one-party system in the country, as was the case in the USSR, the possibility for oppositional thought disappears altogether, the path opens to the dictatorship of the party and its leaders, the entire mass media system turns into a party one and performs only a service function. In these circumstances, journalism itself can never become power. It is not internally free, it is voluntarily serving, and it does not serve the truth, but people, a group of people, a party.

That is why in the USSR there was not a single law on the press or mass information activities. A one-party society simply did not need them; to resolve problematic situations or conflicts, decisions of party congresses or plenums of local party committees, and very often the specific instructions of the first secretary given by telephone (where the expression “telephone law” came from) were sufficient. Liberalization of social relations and an attempt to give socialism a human face immediately entailed the need for legislative regulation of the activities of the media. In 1989, the first and last law in this area was adopted in the USSR. It was called the USSR Law “On the Press and Other Mass Media”.

Censorship also has a detrimental effect on journalism by taking responsibility for the written word. It is impossible to implement a model of socially responsible journalism in conditions of censorship, because it is not journalism, but censorship that is responsible to society for the work of a journalist. The efforts of the authors of censored publications are directed mainly not at understanding their responsibility to society, but at inventing sophisticated ways to quietly sneak their thoughts behind the censorship slingshots. When censorship prohibitions disappear and freedom of speech is proclaimed in society, some journalists find themselves not ready to take full advantage of it: they resort to offensive statements addressed to certain individuals, introduce literary language banter, even use profanity, and submit unreliable, unverified messages. Therefore, the number of lawsuits against the press immediately increases in societies transitioning from totalitarianism to democracy, which could be observed during the First Russian Revolution (1905-1907) and in the countries of the former USSR after its destruction.

Today, the idea has become public knowledge that only non-partisan, independent journalism is capable of fulfilling the functions of the “fourth estate”, next to the three powers that exist in every state: legislative, executive and judicial. From a servant, a maid of power, she turns into a full member of society, capable of standing alongside other branches of government. The press has no other way to exercise its power except the word, truthful information, with the help of which it shapes public opinion. The power of the press is thus an indirect power. The press does not make any decisions and does not implement them. But it has great material treasures: people’s minds, consciousness, and shapes views on certain problems. Consequently, it is on this that in developed countries they ultimately depend government decisions, which accept and implement the first three branches of government.

In a democratic society there is an understanding that only freedom of the press ensures its functioning as the “fourth estate”. Moreover, a democratic society is interested in turning the press into a “fourth estate”, seeing in this the most important guarantee of its own identity and long-term existence, control over the social balance.

In the modern world, the following principles of the liberal theory of press freedom have been developed:

1. People want to know the truth so they can be guided by it.

2. The only method of achieving truth is free competition of views in the free market of ideas.

3. Every person should be given the right to express his point of view, provided that it recognizes the same right for other people.

4. As a result of the collision of opposing views, what will be most rational and appropriate will be affirmed and gain general recognition.

Based on these principles, one of the leading researchers of the press in the West, Professor Walter Hagemann, formulated the following conditions for the implementation of freedom of the press:

1. Dispassionate, comprehensive information about the facts and events of public life.

2. Commentary, independent of trends in public thought and party views.

3. Publication of the mass press, the functioning of broadcast and electronic media in a lively form close to the people, but in compliance with responsibility.

4. Physical, economic and spiritual independence of talented journalists who have the courage and courage to defend the truth.

5. Freeing the press from the need to take into account government interests, but with strict self-responsibility.

6. High business level of publishers, their respect for the spiritual freedom of journalists.

In addition to freedom of the press, freedom of creativity plays an extremely important role for journalism, since the activities of media representatives are of an undoubted creative nature.

Freedom of creativity is the recognition of the author's right to freely, according to only his views and preferences, reproduce and interpret objective reality. Freedom of creativity should be considered in two aspects: epistemological-aesthetic and sociological.

In the epistemological-aesthetic aspect, freedom of creativity depends on the breadth and depth of the author’s worldview, his ability to penetrate into the essence of things and phenomena, understand facts and their relationships, on his talent and skill and on his command of the language of the chosen type of journalism. Creative imagination and fantasy, the ability to see the most significant and interesting, to embody one’s thoughts and pictures of reality in words - all these qualities are mandatory conditions for the creative process of a journalist.

The sociological aspect of creative freedom in the dependence / independence of the author on the views, aspirations and goals of social groups (classes, segments of the population) and the bodies of their comprehension and expression - parties or public organizations. History knows of numerous attempts to bring free creativity under the control of parties or states. “Manuscripts don’t burn,” says the saying, but their authors, artists, and journalists “burn,” and the institutions of power can easily deal with them, taking revenge for disobedience.

With the development of society, the complication of its political structure, with the awareness of the value of the democratic path of the historical movement, the problem of freedom of speech has become one of the primary problems. This happened in the 18th century. The most clearly formulated general ideas on this were the theorist and practitioner of the American Revolution of the 18th century. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). “Our freedom depends on the freedom of the press,” he argued, “and this latter cannot be limited without losing it entirely. Freedom is not as dangerous as its suppression.”

US legislation regarding the press was based on his ideas. Freedom of the press is guaranteed here by the First Amendment (1791) to the US Constitution, which contains the following categorical requirement: “The Congress of the United States shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”

This norm has been adopted by most developing countries along the path of democracy. Freedom of the press, however, does not mean permissiveness and irresponsibility. Even in civilized countries, destructive actions of the press are prohibited, which can lead to a social explosion and work to destabilize the country. UK legislation is indicative in this regard. Here, Section 1053 of Chapter 2 of the Offenses against the Government and Public Acts prohibits speech or print which is intended to cause "discredit or indignation against the Sovereign, the Government, the Constitution of the United Kingdom, any of the Houses of Parliament or the Judiciary, (...) agitation discontent or indignation among his Majesty's subjects, the development of feelings of malice and hostility between the different classes of these subjects."

Equally important in the exercise of freedom of speech is the moral awareness of the need to take into account the human right to the inviolability of his private life. This, for example, was deeply understood by the publisher and editor of the Kharkov newspaper “Sovet” M.F. Lobodovsky, who explained to his readers the content of the concept of freedom of speech from the tsar’s manifesto on October 17, 1905. “This means,” he wrote, “that every person has the right to speak, write, print everything about everything, all his thoughts, thoughts, how and what she understands; but to speak, print only the truth and be honest, without offending anyone with a word, without swearing, without slandering anyone, without shame, and not degrading, without offending a person, because dishonorable treatment in the language, in the word, breaks a person’s right to inviolability, to honor, and how someone will or print a lie against someone, a lie, a court of shame , every rumor, offensive things, unpleasant reproaches are not true, that Kalya is the honor of a person, there will be dishonor on that person, then for this he should be punished by the court, then this will mean that he turned the freedom of speech out of spite, to the detriment of the honor of the second person, and freedom of speech should be honorable, respected, of course, leading to good, and not to evil, to harmony, and not to disorder."

This statement, which is already more than a hundred years old, demonstrates a deep understanding by Ukrainian press figures of the problem of freedom of speech, which is least associated with permissiveness, which provides for the journalist’s responsibility to society, his respect for human dignity and the sovereignty of another person.

The basic principles of press freedom are formulated in international legal documents. In the Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948 and the implementation of which is under international control, Article 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom without interference to hold one's beliefs and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any means and regardless of national boundaries."

And Article 29 of the “Declaration” concerns possible restrictions on rights and freedoms, including the right to freedom of speech. “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms,” it states, “a person shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law solely for the purpose of ensuring safety, due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and satisfying the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare of democratic society."

The right of every person to freedom of speech is also guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (full name: “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”), which was signed by the member states of the Council of Europe on November 4, 1950, and came into force on September 3, 1953. Article 10 of the Convention states: “1. Every person has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference from others. government agencies and regardless of state borders. 2. The exercise of these freedoms entails obligations and responsibilities and may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions and penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public peace, in order to prevent disorder and crime, protect health or morals, protect the reputation or rights of others, prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence, or ensure the authority and impartiality of justice."

Article 17 of the Convention protects the human rights and freedoms set out in it. “Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as such,” it says, “to mean that any State, group of persons or person has the right to engage in any activity or perform any act tending to the destruction of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention, or to limit them to a greater extent than provided for by the Convention."

Generally recognized international norms on freedom of speech, press and creativity are included in the Constitution of Ukraine. Article 15 contains a categorical provision: “Censorship is prohibited.” Article 34 guarantees freedom of speech. “Everyone is guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech, to freely express their views and beliefs,” it reads. “Everyone has the right to freely collect, store, use and disseminate information orally, in writing or in any other way - of their choice. Exercise of these rights may be limited by law in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public order to prevent disorder or crime, to protect public health, to protect the reputation or rights of others, to prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence, or to ensure the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

Freedom of creativity is also guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. Article 54 states: “Citizens are guaranteed freedom of literary, artistic, scientific and technical creativity, protection of intellectual property, their copyright, moral and material interests arising in connection with various types intellectual activity. Every citizen has the right to the results of his intellectual creative activity; no one can use or distribute them without his consent, with the exceptions established by law."

For the activities of a journalist, two articles of the Constitution of Ukraine are important, knowledge of which is mandatory for him. Article 32 protects the privacy of the citizen. “No one may be subject to interference in his personal and family life, except in cases provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine,” it is stated here. “The collection, storage, use and distribution of confidential information about a person without his consent is not allowed, except in cases determined by law, and only in the interests of national security, economic well-being and human rights."

Since the party press is and will be an objective reality of Ukrainian political life, the journalist also needs to know Article 37, which is formulated as follows: “The formation and activities of political parties and public organizations whose program goals or actions are aimed at eliminating the independence of Ukraine, changing the constitutional system by force ", violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, undermining its security, illegal seizure of state power, propaganda of war, violence, incitement of interethnic, racial, religious hatred, encroachment on human rights and freedoms, public health, are prohibited."

The legislation of Ukraine provides ample opportunities for the creative realization of a journalist, guarantees him the right to freedom of speech, press and creativity, recognized by international standards and enshrined in international legal documents.

However, there is nothing more difficult than ensuring in practice the freedom declared in legislation. We will show this using the example of attempts to introduce public broadcasting in Ukraine.

Public (public) television and radio broadcasting is a television and radio organization that is not financially dependent on one or more owners or one or more institutions, which are understood as government bodies and institutions, enterprises, corporations, political parties, business structures, individuals. Public television is independent of anyone in its information policy, except the journalists and viewers themselves.

Such television exists in many democratic countries of the world. The classic representative of public broadcasting is the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which was founded in Great Britain back in 1927. In the United States, examples include organizations such as the US Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio.

Public television has full powers to provide a wide range of information, educational and entertainment broadcast programs throughout the country, in the interests of the entire population, taking into account all its ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, reflecting the entire range of opinions and views existing in society.

International organizations that deal with the state of freedom of speech in the world propose to finance public television through a special tax that every consumer of electricity (household, corporate or government) pays on public broadcasting.

In Ukraine, conversations about the need to create public broadcasting have been going on since 1995, when the term public television and radio broadcasting appeared in the amendment to the law “On Television and Radio Broadcasting”. But the amendment on the need to create such an organization of mass communication was blocked by President L. Kuchma with his veto. 1996 Parliament overcame the veto, but the matter did not move forward. 1997 The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the law “On the system of Public Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine.” But L. Kuchma vetoed this law as well. In 2000, a new law “On the creation of the Public Television and Radio Broadcasting System of Ukraine” was adopted, but it also remained on paper and was blocked in its implementation. President V. Yushchenko in 2005 declared his firm intention to create public broadcasting, but things did not go beyond conversations, the creation of commissions, and the adoption of declarations. Thus, the “Declaration on the creation of public television and radio broadcasting in Ukraine” (2007) was signed by representatives of several government and parliamentary structures; President V. Yushchenko issued at the beginning of 2008 the Decree “On measures to create a system of public television and radio broadcasting in Ukraine.” Understanding of the need for public television and radio broadcasting was declared by the President of Ukraine V. Yanukovych in 2010, but since 1995. Until now, not a single real step has been taken in introducing public broadcasting in Ukraine.

You can often hear complaints from newspaper editors and ordinary journalists about interference in their creative affairs by authorities, specific officials, deputies of Councils at various levels, founders, owners and other interested parties. They argue that, instead of broken political shackles, Ukrainian journalism has found itself in an economic grip, and financial pressure is no less sensitive than political pressure, and they serve one purpose - to force journalists to abandon true and comprehensive information activities and resort to biased reporting of events in the interests of certain individuals or parties. In some, a nostalgic note for the “good old days” is clearly visible, when the editors did not need any paper, printing facilities, or wages, but received all this as a reward for conscientious service to the Communist Party.

It is impossible to argue that such a situation occurs in our information space. At the same time, the difference between totalitarian and socially responsible models of the existence of journalism should be well understood. Totalitarianism resorts to repression, the physical destruction of rebellious, or even simply inconvenient, people who are bright due to their natural talent. In Soviet Ukraine, such repressions became widespread and led to the death of millions of the most talented citizens.

Against the background of these historical events, the modern economic dependence of the press on the founders looks like a completely different level of problem, not related to a threat to the life of the entire journalistic corps of the country. A problem that needs to be solved and will sooner or later be solved in our society.

Ukraine, due to specific internal conditions, is only now mastering the model of socially responsible journalism. The emergence of society from the economic crisis, which has already begun, will stimulate the emergence of a purchasing-capable reader, and therefore an increase in the circulation of newspapers and magazines, which will allow their independent existence and development of the level of freedom that journalists in developed countries of the world have.

Culturology: Textbook for universities Apresyan Ruben Grantovich

7.4. Creativity as a sphere of manifestation of freedom

A free spirit manifests itself in creativity. Creativity creates culture and cultural values. Through creativity, a person realizes himself as a subject of culture, and not just as its consumer. At the same time, creative products can often exist spiritually, like things: archived in a museum, mastered popular culture and available only through it, included in the register of “symbols of prestige and success.” As such, the values ​​of spiritual culture become one of the elements of the environment, sociocultural “nature,” a factor of everyday life.

Creativity is a spontaneous play of spiritual forces and abilities. But ordinary consciousness sees in creativity only the spontaneity of activity. Creative achievements are sometimes highly valued and enjoy special recognition in public opinion. But the mass consciousness sees in creativity precisely the opportunity for high fees and gaining fame. The appearance of these myths is not accidental. Society needs creative work - and these demands are tied to certain images of prestige.

However, ordinary consciousness does not pay attention to the fact that creativity requires high self-discipline and constant sacrifice from the creator. Creativity is pouring into the world. The Creator takes upon himself the tragic fate of the world. But this is already hidden from ordinary consciousness. No matter how creativity is interpreted, it cannot be understood “from the outside.” Creativity is mysterious, because it is revealed only in internal experience, and this is the experience of spiritual burning, dedication, delight from the discovery made, a feeling of completeness and almost perfection (even if momentary, and often just apparent) of one’s own existence as a personal existence. Creativity brings high pleasure; it is directly related to the experience of pleasure.

The problem of the relationship between pleasure and creativity, the enjoyment of creativity, was posed and analyzed in psychoanalysis. However, this theme matures already in Renaissance Platonism, in particular in the teaching J. Bruno about heroic enthusiasm. In Romantic philosophy, especially Schiller's theory of play as the basis of the aesthetic, this theme was conceptualized in relation to the categories of play and labor. Game for Schiller is an expression of truly human existence, and truly human existence is embodied in the game. True, Schiller consciously contrasted play and work. For him, work is a burden, obedience, fulfillment of duty, and pleasure is joy and emancipation. Protestant ethics rehabilitated work as a moral value, as one of the divine callings of man. But here too, work was viewed precisely as a duty; Fulfilling a duty requires methodical, rational, and regulated actions. None of these characteristics correspond, according to Schiller's logic, to the nature of creativity. He is right: in labor, an appendage to the technological process, there cannot be creativity.

However, if we consider work as an effort, self-realization of an individual in general, aimed at achieving a certain result, then one cannot help but admit that in work the possibility of creativity is significant. Even in physical, machine labor there is always an element of a person mastering the labor process, and already in this learning a person tests, manifests, and finds himself. There is no creativity in monotonous work.

He fully pointed out the possibility of spiritualizing labor K. Marx. According to Marx, work can bring pleasure only if it is free labor, that is, an activity during which a person develops his abilities and realizes himself as a creative personality. This is an activity in which a person equally enriches himself and others and society. However, having recognized this, Marx repeats the move made by Fourier: free labor as a source of reproduction not only of society, but also of the individual must be placed on a rationally organized basis and systematically serve society.