Roundtable participants:

Moderator - Radislav Safin, the editor-in-chief of the Bishkek Press Club;

Baktybek Beshimov, a deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh;

Mars Sariev, a political analyst;

Alexander Kulinsky, the committee dealing with complaints against the mass media;

Shamaral Maychiev, the Arbitration tribunal;

Marat Tokoev, the public association "Journalists";

Elmira Toktogulova, the editor in chief of the news agency Tazar.kg;

Andrey Miyasarov, the Media support center;

Bektur Iskender, the editor in chief of the Internet portal Kloop.kg;

Asel Omurakunova, the news agency AKIpress;

Representatives of the media;

Students of Bishkek universities.

Radislav Safin: I am pleased to welcome you to the Roundtable - "''Comments and Forums: Pros and Cons.''

First of all, I would like to introduce today's experts:

Baktybek Beshimov is a deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh, member of the Jogorku Kenesh Committee on International Affairs and Inter-parliamentary Cooperation, as well as the leader of the faction of Social Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan (SDPK).

Mars Sariev is a well-known political analyst in Kyrgyzstan.

Marat Tokoev is the head of the public association "Journalists".

And Elmira Toktogulova is the editor-in-chief of the news agency "Tazar.kg."

Let me give the floor to our first speaker. I would like to remind everyone that, in accordance with the procedures of the Bishkek Press Club, you may ask our speakers questions after they have finished their speeches.

Baktybek Beshimov: Good afternoon. I would like to take advantage of this very interesting event and to congratulate you on the coming New Year. I think that everybody associates the New Year with hopes for happiness, and I hope that God is with you, that your dreams come true, and that you will spend the New Year with those you love.

With regard to the issue, I believe it is extremely important, and I both have a keen interest and regret about the discussion of this topic. The keen interest is because it has happened so that we have to discuss it. And the regret is because in our country, the desire to restrict the people's rights and their freedoms has already reached the Internet. And I regret about the proposal of some of my colleagues in the Parliament to control the Internet.  

In Article 14 of the Constitution, it is clear that we have the right to freely collect, store and use information and to disseminate it orally, in writing or by other means. Second, I believe that the Internet is democracy. In my opinion, it is one of the most democratic phenomena because no one restricts you. If you have free access, you can do with this information whatever you want to. According to your interests, no one can attempt to restrict you; and you can self-realize, depending on the level of your cultural development, professional and personal needs.

I asked my Parliament colleague, "Why are you trying to control the Internet?" He said, "They write disgraceful things in forums, chat rooms, etc." I, myself, enjoy spending my free time online, as an active user of the Internet. Moreover, I participate in many forums; mainly in those that interest me: geopolitics, political processes in Central Asia, some cultural things, history of nomads and ancient Turks, etc. I would like to explain now why there are very unpleasant things in forums. The point is that the Internet provides an opportunity for all. If an ordinary man is restricted in his everyday life, if he is afraid to express his views, if he knows that he may suffer after expressing his views, naturally, the man retreats into himself. This psychological stress is accumulated, and when the man surfs the Internet, he understands that he can express in the Internet forums everything that he is afraid to do in his real life. I do not welcome this, but, in my view, it may not serve as the grounds for controlling the Internet. Very ill-mannered participation in the Internet chats and forums indicate the lack of freedom in our society because a free man can express himself freely in his everyday life. When a person freely discusses many questions, of course, he has to observe certain rules, certain ethical standards, and adhere to some cultural values, in order to not hurt or offend those who wish to discuss this issue with him. Therefore, it is not an indicator of the Internet disease, but it is an indicator that there is something wrong with the moral and psychological health of some of our citizens.

 
And finally, there is plenty of information about the countries who attempted to control the Internet. For example, in China there are restrictions on political websites covering political issues. But in 2006, in Canada they invented a special program, if I am not mistaken, called Sepon, which easily overcomes this obstacle. Several other countries have tried to deal with it, but also failed. Therefore, summing up, I would like to say that I am against any control of the Internet because it is against the nature of the Internet. Secondly, the cultural level of the use of the Internet can be improved by a healthy open discussion of these issues, without any restrictions. And thirdly, I think we need to follow the example of Australia. When they tried to impose some restrictions, the whole society of this country protested against it. You, young people, represent 80 percent of the total population of the country, and you should be aware that the imposition of restrictions on the comments and forums is an attempt to restrict your freedom of speech. The attempts to restrict the Internet are not only the attempts to restrict your freedom, but also to restrict your future. Keep this in mind. Thank you.

Mars Sariev: I would also like to congratulate you all on the coming New Year. Still, we all hope that our efforts will keep the Internet free from restrictions. The topic of my speech is "What should be the state policy and the policy of online publications with regard to the Internet comments and forums? Does this regulation imply restriction of the freedom of speech?" I divided my speech into two parts. First, "What should the Internet be like? And what policies should the state follow regarding the Internet?" The Internet is a space, in which we, post-Soviet people, can teach ourselves the reality of being free. I realized this, when I was on a diplomatic mission to Turkmenistan from 1995 to 1997. As Marat Tokoev said at a round table, "The Internet is the only stronghold of democracy." Only after having worked in Turkmenistan, did I understand the meaning of freedom. The fact that there are insulting comments online is a disease of growth. One cannot skip the "adolescence" period; it is necessary to go through it. There are ethics and self-control. Only registered users can post comments. We see that there is some development, and the Internet space is culturally improving.

Two weeks ago, there was a round table with the participation of human rights organizations from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and a political analyst from Uzbekistan mentioned the right thing, "We look at Kyrgyzstan with great hope. The lack of freedom on the Internet and censorship will lead to what is happening in other countries of Central Asia. This means that the linking channel between the state authorities and the society will disappear. Besides, the democratic field of discussion, which is the main field of development, will disappear too. The state apparatus is being strengthened now." There will be one-sided communication: top-down. And the lack of the "bottom-up" feedback is a disaster. This will lead to future shocks. Human rights activists and leaders of the democratic movement of Turkmenistan expressed the same opinion. Vyacheslav Mamedov said, "This is the first step. If the Internet is given the status of the mass media, it will necessarily be followed by a second step. There will be a systemic approach, special structures will be created." If there is a breakthrough, it will not be stopped. Because this is the logic of the State; it wants to control all. I advocate the idea that the Internet should be absolutely free. Shamaral Maychiev recently proposed a good idea: there are facts, and there are views. And any Parliament deputy or state official, having been insulted, may open his own blog and refute. This is how the society develops. We cannot do without it. And this is the difference between democratic and authoritarian societies.

I believe that the Internet can be self-regulated. We have a sophisticated society; it understands that there is self-censorship. But now, I begin the second part of my speech, which is more pessimistic. I have divided the Internet users into two major parts. The first part is the online community, the civil society, which uses the Internet. The second part is politicians, state authorities and the opposition. I will now quote the words said by Alisher Sabirov, a Parliament member, "No matter which efforts the media community and civil society make to avoid equating Internet publications with the media, they will be equated." You see, this means that the issue is, in principle, already settled. The authorities understand that the Internet is the only tool of the opposition, which they cannot control. This component will politicize Internet and make it a political tool.  Since the state authorities have so many tools, and the Internet space is a new phenomenon.  The state authorities will try to control it, while the opposition will try to use it as much as possible.  For example, The National Television and Radio Company must view the programs of "Azattyk", before "Azattyk" may broadcast them. This is a a tendency.  It is  all coming to this.

I would like to give you some examples, and you can draw an analogy with Kyrgyzstan. Here are a few examples of how the Internet is politicized and used as a political tool in such a stronghold of democracy, as the United States. The head of the "Internet Freedom" information security agency said: "Bloggers are the only real journalists in the countries, where the media are under tight government control."

Therefore, not only online publications, but the bloggers, who are active in the political life of the network, present the greatest danger to the government. The authorities launched a real chase against the bloggers. Bloggers often leave journalists behind, not only due to their ability to inform the distant regions, but also to the speed of delivering information. During the revolutionary events in Kyrgyzstan, the whole Russian-language network received the latest information through the photo reports in the diary of a Bishkek resident Elena Skochilo - "Journal of a vagrant cat." Subsequently, she won the prize "The Blog of the Year" at the "ROTOR" contest. You will recall that during the April protests, when the NTS stopped broadcasting, we received information for a long time through 24.kg, while other media could not provide information online. Therefore, it is a strong weapon, and I think the authorities are aware of it. Unfortunately, the Internet becomes a political weapon. And even if the network ethics are adopted, it will not help. When politicians are fighting for power, no one thinks of the ethics. In the U.S., Internet blogs became a political force in 2002, when an intensive campaign against a Republican senator Chester Lott was launched. He was accused of racial intolerance on the blog of Joshua Marshall. Later the media developed the news. In 2003, Prior to the presidential elections, almost all the candidates used blogs as a political tool. In 2005, CNN even broadcasted a daily program "Inside the Blog," which provided the most interesting information from online journals. In 2003, a campaign to discredit George W. Bush was launched using the search engine Google. As you know, the engine displays in the first place the websites based on several criteria.  One of  these  is the frequency of a citation, containing the key word or phrase. As a result of the so-called google-bombing, the phrase "Miserable Failure" was posted on a large number of resources, referring to the official biography of George W. Bush on the White House portal. And even today, while searching the phrase "Miserable Failure" or "Failure" in Google, the biography of Bush appears first. The example with Bush caused a chain reaction among online communities of other countries - the same search phrase, translated into national languages, or other stinging remarks, brought the personal pages of leaders of Sweden, Italy, Greece, Great Britain, and other countries first in the search results.

 
Politicians are not only afraid of the Internet, but they also use it for their own purposes. The Internet space has become an arena where the warring parties continue to undertake unfriendly actions against each other. In the West, after the events of September 11, 2001, several anti-terrorist laws were adopted to allow the state authorities to monitor e-mail correspondence. In USA, UK, and Canada, the authorities have the right to monitor the activity of Internet users, referring to the struggle against terrorism. In addition, in the United States, such sites of public Internet access, as libraries and schools, were forced to introduce special Internet filters, which extremely disturbed human rights organizations: the imperfection of the software has resulted in the fact that up to 80 percent of the websites that do not have any illegal content became inaccessible. The FBI regularly conducts campaigns to block unreliable resources. For example, in 2004 the Bureau started hunting for the websites of the Indymedia community, which covers the activities of anti-globalists and the issues, relating to public rights and freedoms. As a result, more than 20 community websites have been shut down. In addition, the FBI is developing a system for tracking the activity of Internet users of "Magic Lantern," the information about which is restricted. I just want to say that the ruling power is always interested in controlling this space. And the task of civil society is to keep this space free so that it meets the interests of the country. Another thing I want to say is that countries differ. To some extent, I understand the Internet censorship in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. But Kyrgyzstan should always be a step forward compared with the other republics because this is the only way we can present interest to other countries. Our only resources are human and intellectual ones. If we lose them, no one will be interested in us. The progress will stop, and our country will become closed, like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. When we meet at conferences, we are very different even from our Kazakh colleagues. I therefore, appeal to our civil society and the Internet community, we should continue to fight. Thank you.

Radislav Safin: Thank you. As for the question, "What should be the policy of the State and of online publications concerning comments and forums?" I would like to give the floor to Marat Tokoev, the head of the public association, Journalists.

Marat Tokoev: Good afternoon. I also would like to congratulate you all on the New Year. Let all your dreams, which did not come true in the past year, come true in the coming year.

 
I would like to tell you how the media community sees this problem. Just a few years ago, the Internet was a new phenomenon for us; a kind of miracle.  We were afraid to even touch the keyboard to access the Internet. Today it is a normal phenomenon, and it is hard to imagine our life without the Internet. And every year, these opportunities expand with the development of new technologies and the further expansion and penetration of the Internet. Why is the Internet so popular? I think this is because the Internet provides a real opportunity for the realization of fundamental human rights, such as the freedom to receive and store information, and to express views. The traditional means of communication does not provide this opportunity. Today, any Internet user can express his views on any occasion using chat rooms, forums, etc. As today's topic is a bit narrow, I will probably focus on these issues. Internet comments and forums, as I said, grant the opportunity to express opinions, share information, etc. At the same time, comments and forums today, have become the main target of attacks, and it is because of them, the State attempts to regulate the Internet. After all, the Parliament deputies initiated the idea of legislative regulation of the Internet because of the unpleasant expressions that appear on our forums and comments. I must say, there are, indeed, expressions that incite inter-ethnic and interregional strife. Of course, we can understand that when one sees such things, he has a desire to eradicate them. But can we justify this approach, i.e. the legislative regulation of the Internet? This, of course, is a very big question. As an analysis of the Kyrgyz legislation has shown, all the laws regulating the offline-media may be also applied to online publications. No country in the world has developed a legislative way to regulate the Internet space, which would not simultaneously restrict fundamental human rights (the freedom of expression, receiving, collection and storage of information), as well as in any way impede the emergence of a negative phenomena.

 
We may say that the Internet space in Kyrgyzstan is still developing. According to the most optimistic projections, the penetration of the Internet is possible for only 10-11 percent of the population. But, while we still have no sufficient experience,,we are already trying to start the legal regulation of the Internet.. Actually, not only us, the whole world has no sufficient experience. There has also been a proposal to regulate the Internet through technical means. But, as was noted, this is also hard to implement. Often, when I meet Uzbek journalists, I am surprised at how skillfully they use new technologies. No matter how hard the Uzbek state authorities try to close any web resources, people still find the access to the information they need. Also, they freely send the information. No matter how intensively the journalists are chased, they always find an opportunity to send a message and do it in such a manner that the authorities cannot catch them.

 
Why do our comments and forums contain such unpleasant things? I must say that, first of all, this is because of a low level of culture of political struggle and political dialogue in our society. The warring parties often actively use forums and chat rooms to vilify the other side. That means that forums and chat rooms are used deliberately for political purposes. You know that if there is something new, in the beginning, it develops spontaneously.  Then, gradually, there appears a necessity to resolve the relationship in a more civilized manner in order to ensure progress into the future. I think that in Kyrgyzstan, we can already speak of some order in the network (i.e. the online editions should follow some ethical standards in their work). The State should no longer interfere here because, as practice shows, external regulation produces no results. On the contrary, it creates pressure on the existing achievements. The most effective way to regulate is from the inside (i.e. self-regulation). We have not invented any other way; the process of self-regulation in the Internet environment is used in Latvia, Bulgaria and other countries. I think that online journals, users and providers will have to resolve the problems appearing on the forums and chat rooms themselves, as well as to regulate such negative phenomena as spam, hacker attacks, etc. I think this is the best solution. Today, people worldwide are talking about adopting the international ethics of network usage. We, as a country in the era of globalization, should participate in this process. We must live in accordance with the rules of the world society of Internet users. Thank you.

Radislav Safin: Thank you. I would like to draw your attention that today the editor-in-chief of the news agency Tazar is here to participate at our round table. Elmira, we would like to ask you, what is the opinion of your news agency on the possible restriction of Internet comments and forums?

Elmira Toktogulova: Hello. I hope we will remain free all the future years, and no one will attempt to restrict the freedom on the Internet. I would like to support the Parliament deputies, the Government and those who initiate the regulation of the Internet. I support the regulation, but I would like to do it without their help. Having opened our website, we deliberately refused comments or forums on it. We opened in 2006, a year after the events of March 2005. We knew about those events, and we saw what was happening on the Internet. If you also visited the Internet-based newspapers at that time, you know how much discussion and how many visits there were on Gazeta.kg. Later it was recognized that this online newspaper played its special role in the March Revolution. Being aware of the possible content in comments, we knew that 90 percent of those comments would be verbal trash, attacks, emotions, etc. And we knew that there would be very little argument or exchange of views - the main characteristics of a real forum. Understanding this, we initially refused comments and forums, although we also understand that feedback from our readers is very important. But the level of forums and comments at that time was low. Later, we provided an opportunity to leave comments on our materials, but there were fields required to fill in - name, contact information, occupation and the text that a person wished to post. This was an experiment. We wanted to see if it was possible to bring the discussion of publications to such a level when people initially identified themselves and argued openly. The number of comments turned out to be not as big as on anonymous forums. But we believe this is enough for our website. Another point is that we are planning to open blogs, but we will censure the blogs. We see and understand our readers. They are not stupid, they are well educated and have contemplative minds. We want to save our readers and ourselves from this trash, which absolutely nobody needs. In this sense, we support the regulation. Another point is that we do not need the help of the Parliament members, government or anyone else. Neither we, nor our readers need a special law.  It is unnecessary. It is not the first time we face those who want to influence the fate of the Internet and its status in Kyrgyzstan, and we can come to a reasonable solution. Let's show that we are ready to regulate the Internet ourselves. And we will do it much better than someone from the outside.

 
It is with respect to our website. As for censorship and the regulatory policy on the placement of comments ... You know one of the most famous forums in Kyrgyzstan - "Diesel". The picture there is as follows: When there is some interesting discussion, the forum moderators, some of which are quite authoritarian, begin their work. All agree with the rules working on this forum and understand that no one should violate those rules, otherwise there is a punishment of expulsion. I would not say that it is highly detrimental to the discussion. Another problem is that there is excessive pressure on the creators of this website from the side of the State authorities. We have been told of the case when the State Committee of National Security detained the creators of this website, threatened them, and forced to refrain from doing something. I think such cases are abnormal, and the media must cover them because any reticence or fear of the consequences will lead to the situations mentioned by the previous speakers. It will lead to similar situations, like in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and China. I recently read that in Uzbekistan, visitors of Internet cafes are photographed before they sit down at computers. I have worked in different countries of Central Asia, and I must say that only in Kyrgyzstan I could feel such an air of freedom. I think this is very valuable. Any action causes counter-action. Perhaps, by tightening and imposing any rules, the authorities, on the contrary, provoke even greater development of technologies. We will always find ways to deliver information to the audience. I would like therefore to tell those who initiate the regulation of the Internet: Kyrgyzstan is a different country now, and it is not so easy to take such decisions. And I am glad that the proponents of the bill agree to participate in conversation. The fact that the issue is being discussed is already a good sign. I very much hope that we will be able to show them the catastrophe that may follow the adoption of the bill regulating the Internet.

Baktybek Beshimov: One clarification. I want to say that this was not an initiative of some individual Parliament members. This is a strategy of information restriction that is currently being implemented by the State authorities. It began with the closure of newspapers. Secondly, the State authorities carry on the information prosecution of their opponents. And finally, they decided to control the Internet. That is the point. This is not an initiative of one Parliament deputy, Sabirov. This is a whole range of activities, which in the Parliament and outside the Parliament is aimed at limiting the freedom of speech in every possible way. And, a number of ideologists are working on it. This is one thing. Another thing: why should we spring from the worst example? "In comparison with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, we are so good." Current State authorities are trying to put the country on a path that is followed by our southern neighbors. Let us compare ourselves with better examples. Thank you.

Radislav Safin: Summing up today's speeches, I would like to develop the point mentioned by Elmira about comments and forums on the web. For example, the Bishkek Press Club is often asked why our website contains no comments on our materials. In the beginning, when the press club was opened in September 2006, we thought thoroughly if we should open forums and comments as well. the primary reason why we refused this initiative lies in its economic component. The point is that, in our opinion, to effectively moderate comments and forums, a group of moderators would be required, whose 24-hour work should be properly paid. Non-profits, as well as many commercial organizations cannot afford this. It is no wonder that in the whole country, there is no news agency, which could work and moderate its materials for 24 hours.

 
Roman Platkhiy: I have a question for Mars Sariev. How do you think the international community would react to a possible ban of forums and comments in Kyrgyzstan? Would it still consider Kyrgyzstan a democratic state?

 
Mars Sariev: In Kyrgyzstan, the number of printed media is rapidly decreasing, and such agencies as the "Voice of Freedom" and the "BBC" were subjected to pressure too. This is a trend. This is a systematic approach. I think that the Russian community and the world community monitor these processes, and there have already been signals that it is a step back. I think we will lose this advantage, which we have always had. We have been a country and a pilot area, where democracy developed. We are losing all that, and soon we will not be interesting for the world community.

Radislav Safin: I have a question to Elmira. You said that you initiated an experiment with comments on your website. How did your experiment end?

Elmira Toktogulova: It was successful. Sometimes there were interesting discussions between experts and specialists. For example, after the material on the border problems we received comments even from Tajikistan, from officials and NGOs. Our experts responded to those comments. The people introduced themselves, named their titles and explained why they considered an author incompetent, or why a publication was good or bad. And that was a forum of arguments; that was what we sought. I think it was interesting for readers. Of course, in quantitative terms, there were fewer comments. We interviewed the people visiting the forums, about their motivation. They said that they just wanted to express emotions, but the most important argument was to see who wrote against whom and what exactly. They are mostly secretaries and employees of the Government and the Jogorku Kenesh, naturally want to share with the world what a deputy or an official is like, or what actually happened when there was a discussion behind closed doors. But we do not want such information to be posted on our website. We adopted our editorial policy and reject such kind of information. If we write a comment ourselves, we identify ourselves and ask our readers to do the same.

We recently met and talked about the fact that the number of visitors dropped significantly when the comments were strictly regulated. When the "Tazar" was hacked for the first time, the hackers posted on our website the information on the relationship between Bakiyev and Akaev and between their mothers. At that time, we had just started the site, and the number of visitors was low. But after the hackers had posted that information, the number of visitors reached five thousand. Visitors opened the site and forwarded the link to each other. What was so interesting to read there? I can't understand. Just vulgar and obscene words. But the visitors discussed everything with great enthusiasm. The geographic scope was quite extensive. We were then blamed that the "Tazar" had chosen an aggressive way of self-presentation. But it was not so. Our website was hacked. And I do not understand those visitors. In fact, the same people visit the websites where they can read and write such obscene things. In this sense, I am conservative.

Baktybek Beshimov: There are special studies and courses in the psychology of people and mass consciousness in different societies. There was a scientist who studied the psychology of people in colonial and post-colonial societies. The people who lived under totalitarian regimes do not have a culture of communication; there is much anger and hatred in their actions. And the more freedom there is in a society, the higher its culture. Because people in freer societies have many opportunities to express themselves, they really can do it. If there are many restrictions in a society, people accumulate anger. Two years ago there was a study on international websites, which are visited by the people from authoritarian and despotic societies: there was a lof of aggressiveness, anger, etc. At the same time, the people from free societies learn to speak calmly, using arguments and respecting the views of other people. This is a fundamental component of culture. I would like to say that Kyrgyzstan is not considered a democratic state. According to the components of democracy, Kyrgyzstan is a semi-democratic state. As for Europe and North America, I'll tell you that they do not pay attention to Kyrgyzstan.

Tattu Mambetalieva: I would like to comment on the statement of Mars Sariev, because he quoted my words about the network ethics. The problem is that everything is changing every day. Technologies are also developing. Since 1998, our organization has been involved in the Internet development in Kyrgyzstan. Infrastructure development took a lot of our efforts, because the Internet depends much on the capacity of our telecommunication networks. And 10 years later, we started to talk about the content of websites. When we began to work, Kyrgyz content did not exist. In Kyrgyzstan it is a natural process of evolution, because the majority of news agencies used web forums and chat rooms as a mechanism to attract as many visitors as possible. They gave an opportunity to communicate. Such news agencies as the BBC or CNN also have forums, chat rooms, comments. They are mostly dedicated to some specific issues. It is like the "Diesel," where the topics are divided into themes. News agencies made it possible to discuss news events. And the heyday of forums and chats development coincided with the revolutionary events in Kyrgyzstan. Our users liked them. We opened centers of access to the Internet. Once we asked an old man why he needed the Internet. He replied that he wanted to read the latest gossip. So, forums and chats became so popular that they served as a good mechanism to attract visitors to websites.

Now we see that forums and chat rooms do not work any longer as a mechanism of attraction. The issue of obscene words on forums and comments has forced the owners of websites to introduce moderation and regulation. This issue is not settled yet.  We constantly work with these initiatives. And we see that the opinion of Parliament members is changing. Politics matters, but today I see that those deputies are trying to avoid the issue of regulation of the Internet content because they understand that the public criticizes Parliament members for that. Many understood it as if they wanted to engage in censorship. But to date, we use another method of communication. They say that actually, technologies bring about not only positive things. E-government, online services and other things have been developing and it is necessary to prevent danger to protect us. But neither Kyrgyzstan, nor Kazakhstan nor Russia, nor other developed countries, unfortunately, cannot provide a clear answer on how to do it. This is, as Shamaral said, a challenge for all countries. No matter what mechanism we may suggest, it should be discussed, because first we must look at the technology. Now there are plenty of technologies, with the help of which, an author of a comment may be identified. If two years ago it was virtually impossible to find an anonymous user, today such technologies already exist. We must think about the development of our society. If earlier, we used the mechanism of protest, now, I think we must use the mechanism of discussion. It is effective because we speak the same language and start listening to each other.

The institute of self-regulation is our future. Today it does not work, although there have been different attempts. I want to say that there is a very good example. In 1998 we initiated the creation of an association of communication operators. In 2002, the association was registered. This association has brought together all operators. They protect their rights, may well lobby for their interests, and will not let the Government restrict their rights. One of our achievements is that the bill, which is being developed by the National Agency for Communications, was amended, and the rights of the association of professional organizations were added into the bill. And this is a result of 10-years of work. I think if we now propose online ethics, maybe, it won't be relevant today, but it will be applied later when the society becomes mature. Now we have little knowledge but it cannot go on forever. When I see such politicians - very bright and well educated - I hope that we are making progress. Once again, I want to say that those Parliament members who proposed the idea of Internet regulation seem to be unfamiliar with Internet technologies. And practically, we speak different languages. Therefore, now it is important to hold as many discussions as possible. It is important that other organizations also discuss this issue, or, at least, raise awareness of it. This is because the biggest problem today is not the Parliament members but the lack of the State information policy. However, our civil society is not educated either. We ourselves cannot decide what we want. We do not want to be regulated, but at the same time, we do not want to see obscene words. We want to freely express ourselves, but at the same time, we do not want to see pornography. So, we need to find a balance. I am convinced that today we will not find the exact answer. This issue takes time. Our discussion today is just the beginning. Thank you.

Bektur Iskender: I want to say that the problem of swear and obscene words on forums and websites, as a rule, is a problem of small websites that are just beginning their work. Our example proves it. Our website opened not so long ago, and it has no restrictions for users. Here is how it usually happens: as the sites gain strength and popularity, they themselves become interested in regulation of the content of online publications. There are two problems that we have faced during this time. The first problem is the so-called trolls - people who write only malicious things just to offend all. It is difficult to control. The second problem is spam. I agree with Elmira and Tattu: websites need to regulate all of these things themselves. Frankly speaking, I do not think that in order to control trolls or spam, we should adopt special laws, because website owners themselves are not interested in storing trash on their websites.

The following topics caused the hottest discussion. We raised the issue of religion, when we wrote a story about the conflict between an unofficial eparchy of the Orthodox Church and the official one. The debate was dramatic. Also, there was too much verbal trash. On the other hand, if we then closed the comments, we would not be able to read an extremely interesting discussion on our forum. The question of self-regulation is also very delicate. It is difficult to establish the same standards here. I think we need first to gain some experience here. The second topic also caused many comments; some of them contained obscene words. That was when a transsexual was attacked in Bishkek. The hot debate happened between local homophobes and those who defend the rights of sexual minorities. Again, we decided not to moderate the comments. It was a debate, from which many people could draw interesting lessons.

I think that the fears of many websites owners about comments and forums are a bit exaggerated. There are 480 blogs on our website and during one and a half years of their existence (note that there are up to 1000 visitors per day, and their number is growing every day), there has not been any serious political provocation. Any person can go to our website, fill in a couple of simple forms and write whatever he wants. "24.kg" and "AKIpress," during some time, significantly restricted the content of comments on their websites.  I believe that, in fact, was a great loss. There are many ways to moderate comments. They are not so complex and do not require much effort and money. It is a pity that there are no members of the "Ak Zhol" faction here today. There are people who share the same vision, and we cannot even argue today. Here is what I would like to convey to the initiators of the Internet regulation. When the "Diesel" became popular, it began to moderate its forums, and sometimes too stringently, so that I, for example, suffered from it. The section "Politics and Society" on the "Diesel" is the most illustrative. These are the topics, on which moderators have focused on most. There is also a topic of electric energy. I counted about 4 dozens forums on this topic since last summer. The moderators had to work hard because there was terrible swearing. Recently, there was another vivid example when users got mad. During the peak of the energy and financial crisis in December when it became cold, "Diesel" users found out that the Parliament deputies initiated the idea of punishment for holes in car numbers and wearing underwear with the image of the national flag. The users of the "Diesel" ran wild. I think many of the Parliament members should think about what causes all those comments.

Radislav Safin: Bektur, did I understand you correctly? Don't you moderate the comments at all?

Bektur Iskender: So far, we are moderating only spam blogs and spam comments, because they really cause great damage to the portal. First of all, our users do not like them. When they see a lot of trash in the comments, they themselves cease to comment. Secondly, there is a problem of indexing us in search engines. For example, Google does not welcome websites containing pornography. And spam blogs are created to spread pornography. For example, if a spam blog with pornography appears on our website, this can lead to lower places in the results of search engines. It is easy to see spam because there are many devices that detect it. We constantly update them. So far, this is the only thing that we moderate.. And, we do not moderate anything else in the comments or blogs. So far, there have not been any serious provocations.

Radislav Safin: Thank you.

Kubanychbek Cholponbaev: I have a question to Baktybek Zholchubekovich. Judging by your words, one can understand that you completely agree with the view that the ban on comments and forums is a restriction of the freedom of speech in Kyrgyzstan. What can it lead to? How far can the initiators go in their intentions?

Baktybek Beshimov: I would like to mention two very important points. Dissent may move to another area. Even now, especially young people have switched from viewing the well-known websites to viewing your new websites. Do you know why? People visit the sites where they can get more information. Soon blogs will thrive. This is already happening. And there will be more visitors. Internet space is changing. And the attempts to regulate it are unsuccessful. This is why I say that what they are doing makes no sense. I am against such regulation. Each website should do it on their own. They have the freedom to regulate. But why am I against it? Because I believe that we should first consider why, in chat rooms and forums, people argue and swear, thus showing all the bad sides of their nature. It is not a problem of the Internet; it is a problem of situation. We need to think about it, and what consequences it may bring about. When you leave no choice for people, there will undoubtedly be a social explosion. There are objective laws of nature and development of human society. "Azattyk" is being limited and closed, many newspapers have been closed, and now they are trying to control the Internet. This is an important sign. It is realization of a strategy. We should not give in. When a person is limited in his rights, anger in him will grow. It is growing 10 times quicker. This leads to an explosion. Tattu, in her speech, very well noted that before the well-known events, there was an escalation of the discussion on chats and forums. They played a huge role, because our people have become much more active. That is what it may lead to. Why should we be restricted? I think that restriction is unreasonable from all the points of view. And when politicians are blamed on Internet forums, I think we should accept it calmly.

Radislav Safin: Baktybek Zholchubekovich, you are one of the few, and, perhaps, even the only deputy of our Parliament, who has his own blog. Would you please tell us, if you respond to the comments of the people that write to you? Do you moderate them if their language and style do not meet the rules set by you on your blog?

Baktybek Beshimov: Understand me correctly, please. I intentionally spent a year, positioning myself on other sites. And now my blog will be updated regularly, twice a day. I have two other email addresses, in addition to the address "bakytbeshimov@gmail.com.". Every day, I receive about 50 letters. If I see some reasonable ideas even among obscene expressions, I try to answer. A user may not know you. Many argue tendentiously. Environment influences the way of thinking of in a person very much.

Tattu Mambetalieva: I have a question to the Parliament deputy. Do you know that the Jogorku Kenesh is organizing an international conference on the Internet regulation with the participation of Parliament members from neighboring countries? Is it possible to talk to you and can your blog actively participate in it?, Unfortunately, so far only the deputies from the "Ak Jol" faction support the conference. Second, I wanted to ask another question. When the deputies meet and discuss the proposal to limit and control the Internet, what is the procedure for it? Tursunbai Bakir uulu says that it is necessary to limit the domain ".ru" in Kyrgyzstan. That caused great excitement! And I noticed that our organization was the only one that was alarmed by it because no one understood what that proposal implied. We met with him and explained that he, as an ombudsman, should not propose ideas that might restrict human rights. He agreed. But when Madumarov and Sabirov proposed this idea, I was very frustrated by the fact that our deputies immediately supported them. We need to invent some mechanism to work with the Parliament, so that emotional decisions would not become legislative initiatives. In fact, sometimes the initiatives proposed by our deputies are really alarming. We need to work with your experts and to maintain communication with the deputies. What should we do to prevent similar initiatives in the future? The second question. Actually, we feel that the threat of restricting the freedom of expression comes more from the law enforcement agencies because they offer a variety of initiatives to control, monitor and censor information. We already know that news agencies, communication operators are often prosecuted. How does the Jogorku Kenesh monitor such actions of the executive branch?

 
Baktybek Beshimov: I am happy to answer. The first thing I must say is that I do not know. I received an invitation to the conference yesterday, so I did not have time to prepare. This is an issue which is a priority for me. I will gladly participate in it.

Elmira Toktogulova: I will tell you about the case when our website was last hacked. Shamaral Yusupovich advised us to turn to the militia about that. We went to a militia office, where an officer on duty asked what happened. We said that our website had been hacked. Then, a superior officer came and asked the officer on duty what had happened, and the latter answered that our computer had been broken. The superior officer asked: Where was it hacked?_ We said that our website had been hacked. The officer said: Was your computer in your office at that time?_ We replied: Yes_. And then the militiaman said: So your computer was hacked in your office then?_ We tried once again to explain but soon understood that it was useless. So we left the militia office.

 
Andrey Miyasarov: I really like the approach of the Kloop.kg, because they regulate purely technical things. I want to compare Internet publications with the printed media. When websites introduce some regulation practices, their popularity drops. And you will not be able to gain it back, because you have refused an important thing - feedback from readers. As for the printed media, there is such a situation when 15 newspapers have to meet the demands of 1000 people. Circulation is extremely low. And this is all because our newspapers cannot establish feedback with the consumer. And, as soon as online publications introduce an element of regulation, it will be the end for the online publications. Among the websites, mentioned here today, perhaps, the Diesel is the most popular. Once it becomes regulated, the number of visitors will drop, because people will be deprived of the opportunity to express their views on some situation. Mars, here is my question. Tattu completely confused me when she spoke of her experience of communication with some deputies and political figures. Who suffers from the disease of growing up - colonel Sabirov or the Internet community?

 
Mars Sariev: I meant the Internet community. I fully agree with you. I am an ordinary user of the Internet and not very experienced. I fully agree that regulation of comments discourages visitors. This is a subculture of young people; they talk like that in schools and other places. So why don't we give them an opportunity to grow up? Let them grow up on the Internet, if there is no other opportunity. Otherwise, we will come to the situation of Turkmenistan. During four days, there was fighting in the city center. No one knew what had actually happened there and how it ended. This is a closed society. Some legislators and politicians are intuitively afraid of the openness and transparency. They do not understand that transparency may prevent some unexpected actions, which could happen in a totalitarian state. We have a compensatory mechanism. There were revolutionary events, and the people were informed of it. It is very important. If there is no information, political groups may act arbitrarily. Transparency can solve these issues. The society develops. It undertakes countermeasures. Therefore, I believe that if the Internet is given the status of the media, there will be the same principle as in a dam: a little crack would be enough to destroy the whole construction.

Andrey Miyasarov: We are afraid that a law regulating the Internet will be adopted. Can anybody name a law in Kyrgyzstan, which really works? I am speaking of the laws regulating the media. You know that we have about 40 laws and regulations on the activities of the media.

 
Baktybek Beshimov: Many articles of the Criminal Code, which seek to limit the freedom and dissent, do work. So there is a selective approach.

 
Marat Tokoev: The institution of self-regulation emerged when the question of confidence in the media became topical. In western developed countries, the newspapers themselves understood that readers no longer trusted them. We are not saying that the institution of self-regulation on the Internet is exactly the same as for the traditional media. But, there should be some rules for using the network. Perhaps, the time for such rules has not yet come. But why do we create ourselves a pretext for persecution?

 
A participant to the discussion: I have a little comment. We decided to check how they treat the Internet and communications in general. Let's take all government websites. Try to establish feedback with them. I am sure you will not succeed. This is one point. Another point is that last year, there was a good meeting about the e-government. They held this meeting. And then what? No further actions. Here is another indicator of their real attitude. Try to write a letter to the websites that define the State policy in some other countries. You will instantly receive an answer.

Bektur Iskender: Bishkek City Administration, perhaps, is the only one of all governmental agencies which started to work on the Internet. They are represented on the Diesel, although they were blocked once. The section dedicated to the work of Bishkek City Administration is one of the biggest on the Diesel. And, perhaps, it is even effective. The team, which works in the department of public relations of the Bishkek City Administration, is young and progressive, and it actively uses the Internet. I would like to appeal to our State authorities - they should follow the example of the Bishkek City Administration because it is a wonderful example. This is how they should work with online publications.

 
Baktybek Beshimov: See our website of the SDPK faction. You'll see that all the letters and requests are published. I agree with you. The only and most effective way to combat corruption is transparency and openness.

 
Asel Omurakunova: I'm from AKIpress. I would like to say a few words about our site. Until recently, any user could write a comment to any news. But, we also felt that it was high time to self-regulate and introduce measures to prevent detrimental information that might incite inter-ethnic strife. We decided to introduce registration. A user, who wants to leave a comment, must register. This is an easy process. Since then, our users have become more disciplined, although insulting comments still happen sometimes. We remove them immediately. Our news department has about a dozen journalists, the chief editor, and several editors. The editors, who edit news and post them, are, at the same time, moderators. We do not have any special moderator. Our employees, when not busy with news preparation, look through the comments. We immediately remove stupid or defamatory comments inciting hatred. Other comments remain unedited because people must be given an opportunity to speak. As we have noted, news with comments increases ratings . Since the website provides the opportunity to express opinion, people visit this site. This is how we encourage our audience.

Radislav Safin: You said that your editors are, at the same time, moderators. Do you have a kind of code or special rules, which instructs them when a comment must be removed? Or do your moderators decide themselves when to do it?

Asel Omurakunova: We have 16 points, according to which we remove comments. They are available on our website. We regulate in accordance with them.

 
Bektur Iskender: The main problem of self-regulation is the following. We believe that our administration has sufficient competence to judge which comment is right or wrong. What about swear words? On the one hand, it is bad. On the other hand, a culture of audioblog podcasts is emerging in Kyrgyzstan, where people use a lot of such swear words. But there these words bear some interesting information. It has not been determined, which words are swear words and which are not such. It depends on the interpretation. We are not linguists to decide. We are not lawyers to determine which words incite strife and which do not do it. Law enforcement agencies, ideally, should keep track of it. We do not want self-regulation, because we are afraid of the arbitrary actions of moderators. The Diesel once closed the section Religion_. There was a terrible abuse, and it reached the point when people openly threatened each other. I think that the Diesel measures were too tight. They simply closed the section. And moreover, any mention of religion in general is prohibited on the Diesel_. It is their right to set such rules. But it seems too strict to me. The most interesting thing is that common standards and regulations have not been taken in the world. The largest sites, like Wikipedia, also have faced with this problem. Wikipedia has adopted a set of strict rules on which articles can be placed. And yet, there are ongoing debate and polemics. I have been confronted with a problem. Last year, I posted an article about myself on the Wikipedia. I was curious to check how fast the moderators would react. They reacted within six hours. And then I was interested to look at the debate if the article about me should be posted or not. As a result, they came to the conclusion that my personality was too insignificant, and the article was removed. The discussion was interesting though. It well illustrated that people in the world do not have a clear tool to regulate the Internet. So my final message is that it is too early to adopt a law. We need to wait until people understand themselves on how to regulate.

Kubanychbek Cholponbaev: You have said that you do not want to evaluate which comments incite hatred. You are not a lawyer and cannot adequately judge. But is it so difficult to distinguish such comments as "You, a man from Osh, get out of here?" Do you need to be a lawyer for this?

Bektur Iskender: This is a radical example. I am talking about other examples, especially when it comes to humor. If one does not fully understand jokes and anecdotes, he can find elements of inter-ethnic strife. For example, jokes about the Jews. This is an interesting topic, around which there is much controversy. There are many views that the jokes about this or that nation humiliate and insult the dignity of the representatives of this nation. And people can bear responsibility for that. On the other hand, people may say that it was a joke. And the dispute arises: how to determine if it was a joke or a real intention to insult? We do not have sufficient competence to deal with such issues. We believe that this should be left to the judgment of those, who participate in the discussion. If they decide that an author of an offensive comment really wanted to insult, he will be punished online for that. Once I had a similar case. On one forum, I called someone a bad name. This man found out that I wrote it, he came to me, and we had a hard talk. After that, I decided that I would never offend other people on forums. I think that this process should be natural. People will learn to communicate themselves.

Kubanychbek Cholponbaev: So you are not going to moderate even such offensive statements?

Bektur Iskender: I think we will do the following in such cases. We have a lot of blogs. The author of the blog is the owner of his online space. This is considered a separate website. Each blogger has his own moderation tools to regulate even the comments on his blog. We do not interfere in the comments on private blogs. If the author of the blog finds that someone left an offensive comment, and it must be removed, we cannot do anything. But if the author of the blog decides to leave an offensive comment unchanged, it is his decision. After all, the offended person may complain. Of course, I know that now it does not work. But sooner or later, we need to work with law enforcement agencies in this field. In the West people instigate legal prosecution against those who insulted them on the Internet. I believe that the law enforcement agencies should decide here. We are only a place of accident here. Let them deal with those who violate the law as bloggers, but not with those, who provide an opportunity to open a website.

Radislav Safin: I would like to give the final word to Baktybek Zholchubekovich.

Baktybek Beshimov: Before we say a final word, I want to tell something from my experience. Once, a man wrote very bad things about me. I was really upset. But during the correspondence with him, I discovered that the information was from the wrong source. We are still in good relations with him. As Napoleon said, "Never let your emotions and anger to rise up to your head." Because it is the first thing that paralyzes your brain. Your reaction will be inadequate. Such things must be treated calmly. And, please respond with a good feeling. We are different. We always have a chance to respond with dignity to a bad word. I say this because you are young, and this example may be useful for you.

And now I would like to thank the Institute for Public Policy and Radislav Safin for such an interesting conversation. I would like to thank our speakers, who presented their points of view. Summing up, I would ask you to defend such a valuable thing, without which our life is impossible. It is freedom, including the freedom of speech. If we do it, our lives will become better. I think that was the main reason for today's meeting. Thank you.

Radislav Safin: Thank you. I would like to say that in 2009, the Institute for Public Policy intends to continue to hold round tables on the issues of online journalism.

Thank you all for your attention. Happy New Year! Goodbye.