"Think Twice Before Writing". Fontanka.Ru, 19th May 2016

"Does a doctor have the right to make a selfie during a surgical operation? Does an attorney remain to be the one in bed? Are the congregation prepared to see the clergyman's wife in a swimming suit? These issues were discussed on the law forum in Saint-Petersburg.

Is it right to mix professional and personal? Is there a strict distinction between private and social? Who has the right to draw a line? Initially, the conference as part of the Saint-Petersburg International Law Forum (SPILF-2016) had to deal with the attorneys' behaviour on social networks, but as the discussion progressed its participants began to make personal remarks and also mentioned freedom of expression for journalists, diplomats, doctors and even the clergy.

The list of participants of the conference "Lawyers in Social Media - Between Regulation and Common Sense "containing officials, politicians, journalists and diplomats prompted that the conference would cover much broader issues. Nowadays the Bar includes a great number of lawyers who grew up "hugging a Facebook ". It arouses a question: is it necessary for lawyers to stick to the corporate standards or they have the right for private life? The subject of the meeting within the forum which opened on the 6th of May was framed like that by its moderator Konstantin Dobrynin - the State Secretary of the Russian Federal Chamber of Lawyers, a member of the Council of the Russian Federation a year ago who has been a popular blogger for many years.

"A Russian Psaki"- an official representative of the MFA of the RF Maria Zakharova was registered as one of the speakers. But she was unable to take part in full because the organizing committee of the SPb ILF known for its technical lapses proved its 'reliable ' reputation once more - first attempts to get connection with the diplomat in Sochi by Skype turned into a complete failure.

"Where is Zakharova? Is she present? Then, Yury Sergeyevich, your turn."

At first, the President of the Federal Chamber of Lawyers Yury Pilipenko said that corporate belonging and self-regulation of the Bar can help to implement binding norms of behaviour for attorneys on social networks. Such a document is being worked out by the Council of the FPA(Federal Press Agency) and Pilipenko believes that it will be put into force till the end of this year.

"I have been in Facebook for a long time and I have recently realized that there is something wrong with what l had been doing," - confessed the lawyer. - "I like such an author as Valery Zelinogorsky who writes short stories and sometimes uses a non-normative vocabulary. I bitterly criticized his stories in "Facebook "for a couple of times. Then it occurred to me, - "Is it worth doing for me as the President of the Federal Chamber of Lawyers?" So, I denied that kind of practice for myself."

Advocate Pilipenko believes that it is not enough to acknowledge the professional ethical code for attorneys as a law and also thinks that if an attorney ignores rules created by his chamber, it can result in a loss of the status.

"Still, I don't fully understand , - joined in a co-moderator and a journalist Anton Krasovsky, - what's the use of the new corporate rules to independent people in a country which consists mainly of rules and restrictions."

"It is true that we have a bit too many restrictions, but your remark shouldn't distract us from what we have to do. ".

"Why should you do it?"

"It's because we appreciate our profession. So, we wouldn't like people to misuse the status of an attorney and say inappropriate things," - answered Pilipenko and added later on, - "We should separate information from opinions, because opinions, as I see it, most often cause emotional bursts, dissatisfaction and court examination."

"You mean attorneys can't express their own opinions?"

"Yes, certainly they can. It's out of the question. All depends on what opinions will be regarded as proper and what not by the Bar."

"You mean, opinions may be right or wrong?"- prepared a trap Krasovsky.

"Certainly,"-got trapped the diplomat.

"The Bar doesn't need wrong opinions?"

"Oh, yes, they may be also necessary. There are no standards defining which opinion is right and which is wrong, and they are not likely to appear in the future," - the bearer of the badge "The Honorary Attorney of Russia" got completely confused.

Henry Reznik, the Honorary Lawyer of Russia, was ironically watching Yury Pilipenko sinking down into his own position. Maria Zakharova, a representative of the Foreign Office, was about to join in through Skype, but the connection failed as soon as a moderator tried to address her. Then a microphone was passed to Reznik who reminded that the existing ethical code restricted only professional activities of an attorney, otherwise they are ordinary people and their actions are the subject of the general civil norms and laws such as 'lie', 'insult ' or 'inflaming hatred ' and 'war-mongering'.

"Abroad even a critical word about a judge or an investigator causes certain reaction and penalty, - said Henry Reznik,- but, unfortunately, there is something that is a disgrace to our justice - made to order cases, when It is initially clear to a lawyer that the case is politically, economically and/or corruptively motivated. So, how is it possible to impose a ban on appealing to the public opinion and expressing criticism in a situation like that?"

The imminent battle between Reznik and Pilipenko was interrupted by Zakharova who managed to break through from sunny Sochi to cloudy Saint-Petersburg. It was she, the first female representative of the Russian Foreign Office, who was also the first to touch on the norms of behaviour on the network not only for the Bar but for the authorities as well.

"I realize all the difficulties and peculiarities of the presence of an official on social networks from my own experience. In the very beginning, as soon as I got my present position, I declared that I expressed an expert's stand on my social networks, and an official one of the MFA - on the official site of the Foreign Office. Actually, it is a compromise," - said the official representative of the Russian diplomacy and vanished from site, but the question remained: Is it possible for a human being in a position of an official official representative not to give way to emotions on the network or television?

Emil Bricks, Ambassador Extraordinary of Australia to the RF, had to answer that question. He confessed that he hadn't been given permission to express his personal point of view in Russia, so his words were the speech of an ambassador.

"I have a feeling that when new opportunities appear in Russia, they are, first of all, regarded as a threat instead of using them,"- said ambassador Bricks.

"I have Twitter and I always ask myself a question before starting to write, although I sometimes don't want to control myself. Certainly, we also have recommendations what to say but, if I didn't have freedom of speech, what would be diplomats for?"

Then the floor was given to Natalia Sindeeva, the General Manager of the mediaholding "Dozhd' " which was deprived of satellite and cable broadcasting two years ago as a result of improper questionnaire about the siege of Leningrad.

After asking Henry Reznik whether a journalist was a private person on their networks Sindeeva added her colleagues to the list of those who had the right to private life.

"Your question sounds a bit strange to me," - answered Reznik. "Can you fancy a nightmare where a journalist doesn't have a private space and remains a journalist around-the-clock? You have corporate rules as well as we do, but outside these limits journalists can say whatever they want. But again, there are rules for every citizen regardless of their profession- norms of the civil and criminal law.

To the honour of Natalia Sindeeva, she managed to puzzle the honorary lawyer by saying that a member of the editorial board remained the one even in bed with his wife , and that social networks had become mass media long ago.

"What? Regarded as mass media?"- Reznik was taken aback.

"Yes, if your page is not closed to a hundred of your friends,"-confirmed the journalist.

"But how?"

"Rather as a matter of fact,"- added colleague Krasovsky.

"Yes, certainly as a matter of fact, but not according to law,"- clarified Sindeeva.

The Head of the mediaholding Dozhd " stated that all journalist took unfixed working hours as a voluntary refusal from private life. She also said that private life of a member of the television channel was regulated by the leadership according to personal beliefs (Sindeeva called it common sense) which didn't exist in a form of a document.

Olga Zhuravliova, a journalist of Ekho Moskvy (The Eco of Moscow), didn't agree with Sindeeva. She said that the rules of behaviour on the Net for journalists which had been worked out after the incident with Alexander Pluschev, were absolutely irrelevant when applied to the editorial staff. She suggested adding doctors-among whom only 'insane' could post photos featuring a cut corpse in the background - to the list.

"We can't make a universal law of behaviour on social networks. People should be guided by an inner feeling,- reappeared from Sochi Maria Zakharova.

Reznik completely disagreed,-"If you demand something from a person, your demands should be well shaped and set in order to help this person realize the consequences of their actions. It is called the certainty of law. "

"I don't think that a journalist has the right to do everything,"- stepped in Wolfgang Brandtschtetter, the Minister of Justice of Austria. "It is not about a specific protection of journalists and attorneys. Each of them should work for the benefit of the society. "

It seemed that the Austrian minister didn't fully understand the subject of the discussion due to the difficulties in translation. So, he insisted that the actions of journalists and attorneys had to be regulated only in the interests of the society. It is really hard to explain to a foreign minister that the subject of the ongoing discussion is whether the profession is responsible if one journalist writes about a dead person in "Twitter": "He deserved it", and one president aims at a human being in the same place.

"By the way, before the relations with the USA worsened I had visited the Department of State,"-suddenly recollected Zakharova. -"So, they have very strict instructions for official representatives there on what to say. We don't have such instructions, we are only learning to create accounts."

"Oh, no! This is no connection at all,"- explained Krasovsky after the disappearance of the representative of the MFA.

The discussion about the professional norms of behavior on social networks could have lasted for more than three hours, but whatever the result, it will be in any case broken into pieces by law.

"Henry Markovich, what are you going do if the Federal Chamber of Lawyers accepts these norms of behaviour on the network till the end of the year? Will you quit?"

 "Then I will go to the Supreme Court, to the Constitutional Court and make them abolish these norms," - answered Reznik.

 Julia Nikitina, Fontanka.ru