Russia tightens its 'LGBT propaganda' law with fines of up to $80,000

Russia unanimously approves punishing 'LGBT propaganda' with fines of up to $80,000

Russia's Duma approved, in a first reading, the tightening of the law against so-called 'propaganda of non-traditional sensual relations'. The bill went through unanimously, with the backing of all five parties represented in the lower house. The law extends the ban that since 2013 had only applied to minors: it now covers all age groups and extends to the media, the internet, books, film, advertising and audiovisual services. Fines can reach 5 million roubles, more than $80,000.

Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has already warned that the second reading may bring amendments that tighten the text even further. 'We must do everything possible to protect our children and those who want to live a normal life,' he declared, citing polls from the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda which, according to him, demand prison sentences for anyone spreading such content. The media regulator, Roskomnadzor, has already blocked more than 7,200 websites and gains new enforcement tools with the reform.

What exactly the new Russian law bans

The text is not limited to gaiity. The amendments ban 'propaganda of non-traditional relations', information that encourages teenagers into transactional sens, and paedophilia — a package that lumps very different categories under the same umbrella. The initiative also introduces a mechanism to restrict children's access to gai content on paid services.

Lawmakers have denied that the law could affect the publication of literary classics such as Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, after several publishers voiced concern. The doubt is not a minor one: if the criterion is content rather than medium, the Russian publishing catalogue enters murky territory.

Human rights criticism and the war context

Human rights organisations warn of a reinforcement of conservative positions taking advantage of the war in Ukraine. That is the central argument of those who read the reform as a domestic culture-war move rather than an isolated measure. The 2013 law was already harshly criticised at the time; this one expands it instead of correcting it.

The discussion soon drifted into rougher territory. Some participants argued that true freedom of expression exists in Russia and not in the West, where, according to this narrative, cancel culture runs rampant. The response from the other side was blunt: 'With this, Russia enters directly into a censoring dictatorship. Little difference from Iran.'

Double standards as a weapon

The most repeated exchange was not about Russia but about other people's consistency. The case of Gulf countries was cited, where gaiity is punished with extremely severe penalties while the West sells them weapons and treats them as strategic partners. The argument, made with a knowing smirk, suggests that selective reproach defuses criticism.

The domestic flank also came up: the censorship of platforms and messaging channels in Europe, content restrictions for 'hate speech' and deterrent fines. Some argue that Western democracies have built a more sophisticated censorship, without needing to declare it. The counterargument is simple: the difference between an appealable fine and a law passed unanimously in a chamber with no real opposition is not one of degree, it is one of nature.

The figures traded during the debate

The exchange of data was uneven. Against Roskomnadzor's blocking of 7,200 websites, a 2010 study by the Alia2 Foundation was invoked, ranking Spain as the world's second country in child prono, behind the United States and ahead of Mexico. The figure, more than a decade old, was thrown out as a counterpunch rather than as an analysis of the Russian case.

Another figure circulating, attributed to a 2002 news report, pointed to Russia as the leader in creating child prono sites, with 3,000 new ones a year, under legislation that at the time did not incivil their distribution. The date defuses the argument as evidence of anything current, but it illustrates the kind of ammunition that was used.

What is at stake in the second reading

The text returns to the chamber with room to be toughened. Volodin has left the door open to amendments, and the backing of all five parties removes any parliamentary friction. The question is no longer whether it passes, but how hard it bites.

Given all this, the likely outcome is a final text harsher than the one approved in the first reading. What remains unwritten is how much of that tightening stays on paper and how much reaches the courts. The administrative machinery already has 7,200 domains of experience.