Balancing Protection and Freedom

In a rapidly changing information space, legislative proposals are emerging that aim to restrict the advertising of alternative spiritual practices. On one hand, the initiators of these measures seek to establish clear boundaries for the influence of information on individuals to protect citizens from manipulative influence and potential brainwashing. The idea is to define the limits of acceptable influence, ensuring that advertising and propaganda do not become tools for invading each person’s private space.

However, it cannot be ignored that such strict regulatory measures are causing concern among many representatives of traditional religious currents. Opponents fear that the new initiatives could serve as instruments of ideological pressure and be used for selective discrimination—especially when it comes to the country’s religious diversity. Some critics predict that these legislative measures might lead the state to differentiate religions on the basis of their so-called “spiritual value,” ultimately threatening the freedom of spiritual self-expression and intensifying pressure on traditional religious practices.

In conditions where the public’s level of religious literacy remains low, the regulation of spiritual advertising requires special attention. It is necessary to strike a balance between protecting citizens from potential manipulative influences and supporting freedom of religious belief, so as not to turn the law into an instrument of oppression. The current challenge lies in creating a legal framework capable of protecting individual freedoms while ensuring informational security without infringing on every person’s right to choose their spiritual path.

How do the new legislative initiatives in Russia, aimed at banning advertising of alternative spiritual services, affect religious diversity and freedom of spiritual self-expression?

New legislative initiatives that limit the advertising of alternative spiritual services are fueling debates about balancing the protection of citizens from possible manipulative influences with the preservation of religious diversity and freedom of spiritual self-expression. On one hand, the bill—as noted in one of the sources—is intended to establish clear criteria regarding acceptable informational influence on individuals. For example, a quote from file link (page 3016) states:

"Here, the energy of thought, feelings, parapsychology, and 'curse' is presumed. And only the bill proposed by Deputy V. Ilyukhin remains within the bounds of normal science. He speaks about what truly needs to be discussed: there is an informational impact on a person, i.e., the influence of advertising, the impact of propaganda and ideology. But if there is a person and an attempt to invade his life, then there should be clear criteria regarding the acceptability of that invasion. Should a person be protected from brainwashing? Yes, they should. Ilyukhin's bill attempts to do this. The others merely continue a prolonged session of occulting the population."

This stance indicates an effort to protect citizens from the imposition of alternative concepts through advertising. However, such rigid regulation may raise concerns that it could be used not only to restrict undesirable influences but also as a tool for targeting certain religious communities.

Indeed, another source from file link (page 7195) notes a sharp, negative reaction towards Orthodoxy and the Russian Orthodox Church:

"After my speech at the parliamentary hearings in the corridors, I witnessed a terrible, wild reaction from the followers of this bill towards Orthodoxy and the Russian Orthodox Church. I had not seen such unbridled anger toward Orthodoxy even in the terrifying anti-religious times of the Soviet era. So it is clear: if the issue of enacting this law is taken seriously, it will be directed primarily against Orthodoxy, against Russia. The forces interested in the destruction of our country very much need this lever to further impose occultism, as well as for the informational and financial support of anti-Orthodox heresies and sects—a lever for the further degeneration of the country and its colonization."

This assessment suggests that the law could become an instrument of ideological pressure, restricting not only alternative but also traditional paths of spiritual life, which would have a negative impact on religious diversity.

Moreover, there are concerns that future legislative practices could lead to the differentiation of religious movements based on their “spiritual value.” A quote from file link (page 238) emphasizes:

"It will be possible to recognize one religion as having positive spirituality and another as not having it. Moreover, it may turn out that religions built on esotericism—such as the Roerichian religion or the 'Age of Aquarius' religion—are deemed spiritually valuable, while Christianity might be labeled as spiritually and informationally harmful. A 'witch hunt' will be instituted, along with restrictions on professions and admissions to universities. Legal justifications will be provided for this. The concept includes comprehensive energy-informational education: from basic vocational and general levels up to higher education and scientific degrees and titles. At the same time, there is a specific mention of the need for 'restrictions on admissions to educational institutions in the field of energy-informational education,' seemingly for those considered ideologically unsuitable among young people."

This position highlights the risk that such measures could lay the groundwork for judicial and administrative control over the choice of spiritual direction, thereby limiting the freedom of spiritual expression.

Finally, it is important to note that the current law on freedom of conscience in Russia is designed for a population with a high level of religious literacy—a condition that, in practice, is not met. As noted in file link (page 6926):

"These words can also be applied to the concept of freedom of conscience. Undoubtedly, it is an integral element of a democratic society. However, the law on freedom of conscience currently in force in Russia is only suitable for a country with a high level of religious literacy. Unfortunately, in our country, the level of religious literacy is, regrettably, catastrophically low. Against this backdrop, the existing law allows groups that frequently violate the rights of our citizens to operate with impunity."

In a context of low religious literacy, such legislative initiatives may unintentionally contribute to the infringement of citizens' rights to free spiritual self-expression, creating conditions for group pressure and discrimination within the religious sphere.

Thus, the new legislative initiatives in Russia aimed at banning the advertising of alternative spiritual services have complex and contradictory effects. On one hand, they intend to create a legal framework to protect citizens from undesirable informational influences; on the other, there are fears that these measures might be used as an instrument to restrict religious diversity and the freedom of spiritual self-expression, especially in light of potential biased legal interpretations and applications.