Personal freedom: how to understand that you are a free person

At all times of human existence, the concept of “freedom” was considered as a complex, rather contradictory and difficult to compare with reality definition. In religious, philosophical, and natural science terms, this concept is compared in degree of complexity with the cornerstone definitions associated with the semantic designations of human life, the need for a person to fulfill the obligations imposed on him by nature and society. The semantic load on this definition over time, as it develops human society not only changed relatively, in accordance with the living conditions of human society; This change to this day has been characterized by constant growth and complexity. Despite the fact that the concept of “freedom” also has quantitative characteristics (absolute freedom is the maximum freedom in the human mind; “relative freedom” is a certain part of the concept of “freedom” inherent in the human mind) - it is well known that these characteristics when determining the considered concepts may not always play a fundamental role. In the world of physical nature, as well as outside the sphere of the material, the concept of “freedom” is always strictly defined, relative in nature, which implies the importance of the qualitative characteristics of this concept. If we consider the definition of “freedom” for a person as a natural being, then it is obvious that this component general concept“freedom” has changed little over time. This understanding of freedom presupposes a real possibility, meaningful to a person, of satisfying his physical and biological needs. These include: execution reproductive function, meeting nutritional needs, etc. Another component of the definition of “freedom” can be considered in a person as a social object of a given society and a given territory. Here, too, the concept of “freedom” is associated with the need for a person to satisfy his needs at the social level, with a person’s understanding of his capabilities regarding the satisfaction of one or another part of the needs in question. Both components of the concept of “freedom” have a relative connection with each other. It's hard to imagine complete satisfaction " modern man» basic needs without the necessary level of social satisfaction. Concepts such as “freedom of speech”, “freedom of thought”, “freedom of society” have a real content when the social component of the concept of “freedom” is considered. It is obvious that between these components there is a direct and feedback relationship, relative interdependence. The third component of the concept of “freedom” is not only the most complex, but also the most important, both in relation to the first two components and to the entire concept. True freedom is spiritual freedom. One can be free on a basic or social level, but not be free in the full sense of the word. On the other hand, a person who is not free at the basic and social level, but free spiritually, has every right to call himself a free man. Of course, “spiritual freedom” is relative. It cannot be the only one and not related to the first two components of this concept. This connection can be revealed as a connection between the natural, social and spiritual principles in humans. Here is the spiritual principle, the first among conditionally equal principles. That is why, nurturing a person’s spirituality gives the latter a real opportunity to feel “free.”

The concept of personal freedom

Personal freedom is a multifaceted concept: Economic freedom to make economic decisions, freedom of economic action. (the individual (and only he) has the right to decide which type of activity is preferable for him, in which industry he will be active). Political such a set civil rights, which ensures the normal functioning of the individual. (a modern civilized society is unthinkable without universal equal suffrage and a fair national-state structure). Spiritual freedom to choose a worldview, ideology, freedom to propagate them, freedom to profess any religion, or to be an atheist. The epistemological ability of a person to act on an increasingly large scale and successfully as a result of knowledge of the laws of the surrounding natural and social world.

Freedom and responsibility of the individual. If we take a higher aspect of the problem, then freedom is always associated with necessity and opportunity. People are involuntary in choosing objective conditions, but they have a certain freedom in choosing goals and means of achieving them. Freedom is an attribute of personality. But freedom without responsibility is arbitrariness. Therefore, responsibility is not less, but more an attribute of the individual, because being responsible is more difficult than being free. And the more significant and higher a person is, the higher his responsibility to himself and to people. Freedom is only one aspect that characterizes the social status of an individual. It cannot be absolute, since the individual is not Robinson: he lives in a society like him, and therefore his freedom must be correlated with the freedom of other individuals. Thus, freedom is relative, and all democratically oriented legal documents proceed from this relativity. Thus, the UN Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that these rights, in the course of their implementation, should not infringe on the rights of other individuals. The relative nature of freedom is reflected in the responsibility of the individual to other individuals and society as a whole. The dependence between freedom and responsibility of the individual is directly proportional: the more freedom society gives a person, the greater his responsibility for using these freedoms. By infringing on the freedom of others, a person himself risks finding himself “in the zone of freedom deficiency.” One French legend tells of the trial of a man who, waving his arms, accidentally broke the nose of another man. The accused justified himself by saying that no one could deprive him of the freedom to wave his with my own hands. The judgment on this matter read: "The accused is guilty because one man's freedom to wave his arms ends where another man's nose begins." So in society you always need to coordinate your actions with the interests of other people, with the interests of the surrounding community. There is no abstract, as well as absolute, freedom; freedom is always concrete. Personal freedom is a single complex with the rights of members of society. It is impossible to separate political and legal rights—freedom of conscience, beliefs, etc.—from socio-economic rights—to work, to rest, free education, medical care i.p. A personality is a socially developed person; there is an inextricable connection between society and the individual.

The problem of personal freedom

The imposition of moral demands on an individual presupposes the individual's ability to act freely. But is a person free in his actions? If we consider a person as a separate individual choosing one of the options for his action, then a person is always free. Thus, existentialism believes that a person is always free, even in prison he has the opportunity to choose to live or die. But as soon as we move on to consider the interaction of a person with the natural and social world around him, we notice that there is no freedom. Ancient mythology clearly showed how personal freedom is connected with the objective necessity of actions predetermined by fate. Fate is the opposite concept of freedom. For the ancient Greeks, fate is not the lack of opportunity to act according to one’s will, but the futility of attempts to change the predetermined path of life. As Seneca put it, “fate leads, the resister drags.” Fate is blind, dark. It is impossible to know her. It can only be guessed, predicted (by hand, cards, stars, etc.). Christianity abandoned the idea of fate as an inevitable fate. Christians believed that the water of baptism washed away the seal of the constellations and freed them from the power of fate. But the absence of fate does not yet make a person free. Society can limit a person's free actions, and freedom will turn out to be unfree. And in Christianity itself there is a limitation of freedom by the will of God. In philosophy, this problem is expressed in the relationship between the concepts of “freedom” and “necessity”. Different thinkers gave preference to one or the other side of this relationship. According to Kant, the individual is autonomous, independent and self-legitimate. But man limits himself by his own law. “Give yourself a law,” says Kant, “and act in such a way that the rule of your behavior becomes universal.” That is, freedom is achieved through moral restrictions. Spinoza, Hegel, Marx associated freedom with the knowledge of necessity (“freedom is a known necessity”). According to Fromm, the problem of freedom in general is not solvable. Freedom is an abstract concept and means the act of self-liberation through a process of decision. That's two possible actions, before which a person is placed. But is the poor man, the alcoholic, free? Freedom is the ability to follow the voice of reason, against the irrationalism of passions. And this is at every step, otherwise the amount of freedom decreases, the choice becomes more difficult and necessity arises. For example, there is more freedom at the beginning of a game of chess than in the middle or end of the game. The girl has the freedom to choose whether to get into the car with the guys or not, but if she gets in, then there is less freedom. When characterizing the lack of freedom of an individual from social demands, the concept of “responsibility” is used. Of course, a person is free to act one way or another, but he bears the burden of responsibility for the family, for the team, for the state. Responsibility is a person’s voluntary restriction of his freedom. The demands placed on a person by society appear before him in the form of debt. Internal awareness and experience of responsibility appears in the form of conscience. To characterize responsibility, the concepts of “honor”, “dignity”, “reputation” are used.

Each person must be independent not only from the people around him, but also from higher authorities authorities. Personal freedom is ensured by the current Constitution, as well as the norms of other legislative acts.

Of course, we largely depend on each other and on the state in which we live, however, no one can tell us what to do and how to act in certain situations. Our choice is our choice. No one should do it for us.

Human freedom is something that needs to be cherished and protected, despite what is happening around. Why? Yes, because this is the basis of well-being. Personal freedom is undeniable. We ourselves choose what to strive for, what to do, what books to read, and so on. Today, even imposing religious views on people is prohibited.

Freedom is a product of social development. It is, in principle, impossible to measure it, but it is still possible to say whether it exists. It is not only external, but also internal. The latter does not depend on the laws and how they are observed, but on how a person relates to life, how he perceives reality.

Personal freedom is not only imaginary, but also real inviolability. As mentioned above, it is simply impossible to measure it. A person can long time It seems that he lives completely independently, but one day he will notice that he is disadvantaged by the state or other people. What difference does it make what the laws say if no one follows their norms?

In general, it is inviolable. The ability to go to court every time one or another of our rights has been violated is actually worth a lot. We have the right to use the property that belongs to us at our own discretion, to profess the religion that we like (we don’t have to profess any at all), we can use everything that is rightfully due to us. What's important here? First of all, that while exercising our rights and freedoms, we should not in any way infringe on the rights and freedoms of other people. Great thinker said that the freedom of one person ends in the very place where the freedom of another begins.

Yes, laws should limit us in many ways, since without existing prohibitions for which sanctions are provided, people would begin to infringe on each other’s rights and interests as much as they can. Without prohibitions, everything around would quickly turn into chaos. Laws must be fair and thoughtful. They should be created to provide benefits to all people, and not to any specific sections or groups. The goals that underlie them must be humane.

Personal freedom allows a person to live exactly the way he wants. Everyone decides for themselves whether it is worth striving for heights or just existing quietly, without pretending to something great, significant, great. You can’t impose your opinion, and is it even worth doing? Let everyone choose how to live. Yes, you shouldn’t interfere in other people’s affairs.

Personal freedom in a rule-of-law state has a direct connection with the possibility of expression. Is it possible to say what you think is right? Everything is complicated here. People who tried to oppose the current government probably felt that freedom of speech in our country is not so respected: it both exists and does not exist at the same time. They like to shut our mouths, withhold information from us, and promote what they think is necessary. People in power in our country do not often think about personality. Will it ever be fixed, changed, destroyed? Unknown. There are too many imaginary freedoms around, which modern people, unfortunately, perceive as significant.

Personal freedom is inseparable from the freedom of society. After all, the goals that a person sets are not only the result of his will, they are simultaneously conditioned by the existing state of affairs, the circumstances of his social life. Circumstances public life create for a person a variety of goals, a set of opportunities and means of their implementation. And the more fully and accurately a person evaluates the actual possibilities and means of social development, the freer he is in his choices and actions, the greater the scope opens up for him to set goals and find necessary funds provided by society at his disposal, the greater the prospects for the creative creation of new things and his personal freedom.

Society, social conditions are a necessary condition for individual freedom. However, we must not forget about the inner freedom of a person, his spiritual self-determination (freedom of spirit, human power over his body and soul). Personal freedom is most directly related to a person’s responsibility for all his deeds and actions.

Responsibility is a conscious attitude, the willingness of an individual to answer for himself and his actions in response to demands made by society, a group, and other individuals. Responsibility, like freedom, can only be conscious. It is accepted by a person as his direct duty, right, obligation to act in the current circumstances exactly this way and not otherwise, and to take full blame in case of defeat or failure. Responsibility as an internal feeling and principle of thinking and acting of an individual does not arise spontaneously; it is formed in the process of education and is the result of all practical activities of the individual. Responsibility, like freedom, is holistic. However, like freedom, it can specifically manifest itself in its different types: legal, moral, political, economic, aesthetic. The wider the scope of individual freedom in society, the more significant is his responsibility not only for his own actions, but also for the actions of other people, and, conversely, along with the restriction of personal and public freedom, responsibility also narrows. Responsibility is a regulator of a person’s actions, an internal spring of discipline and self-discipline of a person, which does not allow freedom to be viewed and used as permissiveness. It is this kind of connection between freedom and responsibility that reflects the objective, specifically historical nature of the relationship between the individual and society.

Freedom and responsibility are always manifested in specific activities when a person, pursuing his interests, makes a choice of goal and carries out a conscious action to achieve it. The goals achieved indicate the level (limits) of development of his freedom and responsibility. A person does not have absolute freedom, and, therefore, responsibility, no matter what strength of spirit, aspirations and desires to realize them he possesses.

His freedom, and therefore responsibility, is always relative, dependent, variable and has a certain measure - the limits of the possibilities of their implementation.

The measure of freedom and responsibility depends on the objective conditions of a person’s life, as well as on herself, her goals that she sets for herself and which she implements in her activities. A person does not simply choose goals from what society offers him, he chooses them from the standpoint of his ability to realize these goals precisely in the given specific conditions of his life. The real possibilities of an individual in choice and action, although they can be extremely wide, nevertheless cannot be limitless. This means that freedom itself is internally contradictory, uncertain, and can be responsibly recorded by an individual only situationally. A person can competently and responsibly make a choice from a variety of different options and carry out autonomous action only within the framework of and on the basis of its specific activities. When a person goes beyond the situation of his specific activity, he is obliged to acquire new knowledge of the matter in order to act freely. Freedom is multifaceted, and therefore there is no limit for the individual in mastering it different types and edges. In this regard, we can talk about economic, political, spiritual freedom, different levels their achievements as individuals.

Human experience and science show that even the most, at first glance, irrational human actions are always determined by the inner world of a person or external circumstances. Absolute free will is an abstraction of the real process of formation of a person’s volitional act. Of course, a person’s volitional decision related to the choice of goals and motives for activity is determined mainly by his inner world, the world of his consciousness, but this inner world of a person or world of consciousness does not oppose the external world, but is a reflection of this external objective world. The dialectical interdependence of events in this inner world is a reflection of the dialectical interdependence of phenomena in the external world. Objective determination (causality) of phenomena in the world, objective natural necessity are reflected in the world of consciousness in the form of logical and psychological necessity connecting human ideas, cognitive images, concepts and ideas.

Thus, the problem of freedom, which includes the problem of knowledge, morality and social action, is one of the leading problems that connects the theory of knowledge, ethics and social philosophy into a single whole.

Along with obvious, illegal forms of humiliation of self-esteem in life, there are many such forms in the fight against which legal means are not always effective. This is rudeness, rudeness, cynicism, arrogance, which often manifests itself in the attitude of managers to subordinates, parents to children, husband to wife or vice versa, teacher to students, senior to junior or junior to senior in age, rank, etc.

In developing the understanding of the dignity of the individual and its protection by the state in Part 2 of Art. 21 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “No one should be subjected to torture, violence, or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one can be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without voluntary consent.” This norm reflects extreme, gross forms of infringement of personal dignity. And the state has legal means to combat them. Unfortunately, they are often not used. Take, for example, the measures of physical coercion applied by some law enforcement officers to detainees, suspects and persons under investigation. They have become widespread, but there is no proper response from prosecutors.

Right to liberty and security of person

Freedom and personal integrity mean that no one has the right to forcibly restrict a person’s freedom, the ability to perform any actions that do not contradict the law, without being subject to any coercion or restriction of rights from anyone.

In Art. 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom and personal security.

2. Arrest, detention and detention are permitted only by court decision. Pending a court decision, a person cannot be detained for more than 48 hours."

Concept of immunity includes both physical integrity (this is life itself, human health) and spiritual integrity (honor, personal dignity).

A person has the right to control his own destiny, to choose his life path- specialty, whether or not to go to work, get married, choose friends, etc. and so on. No one has the right, using physical force or psychological influence, to force another to take certain actions, subject him to a search, torture, or cause any other harm to health. Restrictions on this freedom are possible only in cases provided for by law and in legal forms. All coercive measures by law enforcement agencies must be under prosecutorial supervision and judicial control.

The guarantee of a person’s physical integrity is the strict regulation of the use of arrest, detention and detention. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 2 of Article 22), appropriate restrictions on freedom are possible only by court decision. Pending a court decision, a person cannot be detained for more than 48 hours.

Any preventive measure, including detention, is applied if there is evidence to believe that the accused will hide from the inquiry, preliminary investigation or trial, or will obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case, or will engage in criminal activity, as well as to ensure the execution of the sentence by the person carrying out the inquiry, the investigator (with the sanction of the prosecutor) or the prosecutor himself or the court.

Right to privacy

The constitutional right of every person to privacy, personal and family secrets is derived from the most ancient moral views, according to which everything connected with blood ties and marriage is sacred and inviolable. The unceremonious invasion of an alien into this easily vulnerable area has always been considered a shameless and inhumane act.

In the legal literature there is no clarity on what should be understood as a person’s private life. So, M.V. Baglay believes that “private life consists of those aspects of a person’s personal life that, due to his freedom, he does not want to make public: others.” The concept of private life is revealed more fully by B.T. Bezlepkin. He believes that “private life is that area of a person’s life that relates to an individual, belongs and is dear only to him, concerns only him, and not society and the state, and therefore, according to general rule, is not subject to their control. In other words, this is the sphere of personal, non-work and non-business relationships and concerns. Personal and family secrets are part of private life, an area of the most delicate and intimate aspects of a person’s existence, when the disclosure of certain information is not only undesirable, but also deeply immoral, contrary to human nature itself and the relationships that have developed between people since ancient times and existing from time immemorial. Personal confidentiality (and at the same time medical confidentiality), in particular, consists of information about the state of health (unless, of course, we are talking about the health of senior state officials, on whom the “political health” and well-being of the entire society depend). The depth of this mystery depends on the nature of the disease, i.e. on how “bad” she is. Personal secrets also include information about love affairs, especially when they are associated with adultery (adultery), preferences, inclinations and habits, congenital and acquired defects, physical and mental disabilities, sexual orientation and sexual inclinations, financial situation, pastime etc.

A family secret consists of circumstances that concern the family, and a family is a union of persons based on marriage, kinship (or kinship only), as well as the adoption of children for upbringing, characterized by a community of life, interests, and mutual care.”

And finally, some authors define private life as behavior and activities in free time outside of work (behavior in the family, home life, friendly contacts, correspondence, business relationships outside of work). Questions immediately arise: can such “activities in free time from work” as participation in political life, behavior in public places, friendly contacts of persons holding high positions in government bodies with immoral or criminal elements, life “beyond the means” of an official during vacation, etc.?

In view of the above, under the private (personal) life of a person one should understand that part of a person’s life that is not related to his official or social activities and cannot negatively affect these activities.

Private life can be defined as a physical and spiritual area that is controlled by the individual himself and is largely free from external directing influence, including legal regulation.

The right to privacy means the opportunity granted to a person and guaranteed by the state to control information about himself and to prevent the disclosure of personal information of an intimate nature. It is expressed in freedom of communication between people on an informal basis in the areas family life, family and friendly ties, intimate and other personal relationships, affections, likes and dislikes.

As a legal category, the right to privacy consists of a number of powers that provide a citizen with the opportunity to be outside of work, outside of a work environment in a state of certain independence from the state and society, as well as legal guarantees of non-interference in the implementation of this right.

IN modern world the right to privacy is included in the catalog of human rights, that is, it is classified as one of those most important rights without which an individual cannot exist as a human being.

Personal and family secrets are components of a person’s personal life, relatively isolated zones of the most delicate, intimate aspects of his life, when the disclosure of certain information is not only undesirable, but also harmful, detrimental from a moral point of view.

Personal secrets include information about the state of health, especially in cases where a person suffers from diseases that are considered shameful from the standpoint of public morality; love affairs, especially when they involve adultery; bad habits, inclinations, predilections, congenital, hereditary and acquired, defects, sometimes bordering on neuropsychic abnormalities, hidden physical defects; a citizen’s vicious social past (for example, an expunged or expunged criminal record), as well as business and friendly connections that discredit the person.

Family secrets are those circumstances that concern the family and, for moral reasons, are hidden from prying eyes family, which in the social aspect means a union of persons based on marriage, kinship or kinship only, the adoption of children for upbringing, characterized by a community of life, interests, mutual care, and in a legal sense it means a circle of persons bound by the rights and obligations arising from marriage , kinship, adoption or other form of fostering children. A family secret can concern all members of a given family (for example, the reasons for childlessness), but can only be associated with one of them (for example, the origin of children as a result of artificial insemination; the secret of adoption).

The concepts of personal and family secrets are closely related and largely coincide. The differences between them are seen in one thing: if a personal secret directly concerns the interests of only a specific individual, then a family secret affects the interests of several persons who are in relations with each other, regulated by the Family Code.

The following information may be the subject of personal and family secrets:

about the facts of the person’s biography;
about his state of health;
about property status;
about occupation and actions performed;
about views, assessments, beliefs;
about family relationships or a person’s relationships with other people.

Based on the norms of the current legislation, the following types of professional secrets can be distinguished: lawyer, medical, confessional, correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages, adoption, notarial actions, editorial, investigation, deputy, banking.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, enshrining the right to privacy (Part 1 of Article 23), establishes a procedure in which this area of life should be a secret to outsiders and protected by the state from the attention and influence of the outside world. For this purpose, the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the institution of “personal and family secrets” (Part 1, Article 23). However, the essence of this institution, unfortunately, is not revealed, which makes it possible to arbitrarily, very subjectively interpret it, and, consequently, violate this secret with impunity.

Privacy means a prohibition for the state, its bodies and officials to interfere with personal life citizens, the latter’s right to their personal and family secrets, the presence of legal mechanisms and guarantees for the protection of their honor and dignity from all attacks on these social benefits.

Inviolability of the home

The inviolability of the home is one of the manifestations of the right to privacy. Not only the owner of this home has the right to security of the home, but also those who legally rent it or live under a rental agreement. In this case, housing means not only an apartment or a separate house, but also a place of temporary residence (hotel, boarding house, dormitory).

The inviolability of the home means that no one has the right to enter the home against the will of the persons living in it, except in cases provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code, the laws “On the Police”, “On Federal Bodies”. state security" and etc.

Current legislation allows entry into a home against the will of the persons living there in two situations:

1. in case of unforeseen emergency circumstances (fire, earthquake, flood, collapse, water supply, sewerage failure, damage to electrical wiring, heat and gas supply, if there is a suspicion that the owner of the apartment (house) has died and in other similar cases);
2. when protecting law and order (to solve a crime and establish the truth in a criminal case; obtain information about a crime and persons suspected of committing it during operational investigative activities; suppression of crimes and other offenses within the framework of administrative law; execution of sentences and other court decisions).

In the absence of proper regulation and documentation penetration into a home without the knowledge of the persons living in it, as well as in the absence of strict control on the part of judicial and prosecutorial authorities, the right to the inviolability of the home, enshrined in Art. 25 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation may be nullified.

Freedom of movement and residence

Everyone who is legally present on the territory of Russia (citizens of the Russian Federation, foreigners who comply with the legislation on entry and exit, as well as stateless persons) has the right to move freely and choose their place of residence (or temporary stay).

This right is enshrined in Part 1 of Art. 27 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Issues of movement within the country are regulated in detail by the Law of the Russian Federation of June 25, 1993 N 5242-I “On the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation.” While establishing a general rule of free movement within Russia, the law at the same time limits the right of free movement:

- in the border strip;
- in closed military camps;
- in closed administrative-territorial entities;
- in areas of environmental disaster;
- in certain territories and in populated areas, where in case of danger of the spread of infectious and mass non-communicable diseases and poisoning of people, special conditions and regimes for the population’s residence and economic activity have been introduced;
- in territories where a state of emergency or martial law has been declared.

Outside such areas, no restrictions on freedom of movement by any means of transport or on foot are permitted.

The right to choose a place of residence is part of the individual’s freedom of self-determination. State authorities are only authorized to register the results of a citizen’s act of free expression when choosing a place of residence. That is why registration cannot be of a permissive nature and serve as a basis for restricting a citizen’s right to choose a place of residence.

A type of right to freedom of movement is the right to freely leave the Russian Federation and unhindered return to the country. This right is enshrined in Part 2 of Art. 27 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and is regulated in detail Federal law"On the procedure for leaving the Russian Federation and entering Russian Federation"(1996). According to this law, every person, including a foreigner, has the right to enter and leave Russia. Citizens of Russia have the unconditional right of entry and exit. As for foreigners, the basis for their entry is entry visa, and for citizens of a number of countries (for example, members of the CIS, except Georgia) a visa-free regime has been established for visiting Russia.

Travel abroad by citizens of the Russian Federation cannot be a reason for the derogation of their civil rights. Citizens of Russia enjoy their rights abroad. They are under the diplomatic protection of the Russian Federation.

It is impossible for a citizen of the Russian Federation to travel outside of Russia. if he:

called up for military or alternative service;
detained on suspicion of committing a crime or brought in as an accused - until a decision on the case is made or a court verdict comes into force;
convicted of committing a crime - before serving (executing) the sentence or until release from punishment;
evades the fulfillment of obligations imposed on him by the court - until the obligations are fulfilled or until the parties reach agreement;
provided knowingly false information about himself when preparing documents for leaving the Russian Federation - until the issue is resolved within a period of no more than one month by the body preparing such documents;
admitted to information classified as state secret;
entered into an employment agreement (contract) providing for a temporary restriction of the right to leave Russia, provided that the period of restriction cannot exceed 5 years from the date of the last acquaintance of the person with information constituting a state secret - until the expiration of the restriction period established employment contract, or in accordance with the Federal Law "On the procedure for leaving the Russian Federation and entering the Russian Federation." This law establishes that the period of restriction of the right to leave should not exceed a total of 10 years from the date of the person’s previous acquaintance with information of special importance or top secret information.

Denial of a citizen's right to enter and leave Russia can be appealed in court.

The right to determine and indicate nationality

The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 established that everyone has the right to determine and indicate their nationality. No one can be forced to determine and indicate their nationality (Part 1, Article 26).

The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 2 of Article 26) enshrines the right to use one’s native language, to freely choose the language of communication, education, training and creativity.

In the Russian Federation, the promotion of hostility and disdain for any people, any nationality, their language and culture, the establishment of privileges or discrimination based on nationality or linguistic affiliation are unacceptable.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaims Russian as the state language in Russia. And this means that in Russian:

- the work of federal government bodies is underway;
- official printed publications are published;
- radio and television are operating;
- paperwork is in progress;
- foreign policy activities of the Russian Federation are carried out.

But this does not mean discrimination against other languages used in the Russian Federation.

Republics within the Russian Federation are endowed with the right to have their own official languages along with Russian. If a citizen does not speak Russian, he must be provided with an interpreter to communicate with government agencies and officials. Every citizen has the right to use his native language, to carry out creativity (for example, to write works of art) in his own language.

Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion

Under freedom of conscience understands the right of each person to independently decide on his attitude towards religion: to be a believer or an atheist.

Freedom of religion includes the right to profess, individually or in community with others, any religion, the right to freely choose, have and disseminate religious beliefs and act in accordance with them.

The procedure for the implementation of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion is established by Federal Law of September 26, 1997 N 125-FZ “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations”. This law provides for such guarantees of freedom of religion as the prohibition of requiring a person to communicate his attitude to religion, the secret of confession, the right of a citizen to replace military service, if it contradicts his beliefs and religion, with alternative civil service and a number of others.

Religious affiliation has no legal significance, which means it is not indicated in official documents and is a personal matter for everyone.

While proclaiming and guaranteeing freedom of religion, the law at the same time persecutes those religious associations (sects) whose activities are associated with causing harm to the health of citizens, with inducement to refuse to fulfill civil duties or to commit illegal actions.

Freedom of thought and speech

Freedom of thought and speech is freedom, without which normal life activities of both individuals and society as a whole are impossible.

Freedom of thought is the basis of a person’s spiritual life, the ability to carry out the work of one’s own consciousness and subconscious without external control from the state, society and individuals.

Freedom of thought- This natural state of a person, associated with determining his attitude towards everything around him, with the free formation of his own beliefs regarding everything that happens.

As many authors note, thought is always free, this is its immanent state, therefore freedom of thought does not need to be legislated. That is why the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 1, Article 29) does not speak about the right to freedom of thought and speech, but about their guarantee.

How can freedom of thought be guaranteed? First of all, the presence of a democratic regime in the country, which excludes targeted influence on a person’s consciousness and subconscious, preventing a monopoly on information, and powerful ideological pressure on a person. In addition, freedom of thought must be guaranteed by strict regulation technical means(for example, a lie detector) or other methods (for example, hypnosis) that can penetrate thought processes and influence them.

Under freedom of speech is understood as the opportunity to express or not express one’s thoughts externally, to express one’s attitude to the events of the surrounding reality, to defend one’s point of view, to have one’s own opinion, to receive and disseminate information.

Freedom of speech provides an opportunity to identify and take into account the diversity of opinions and beliefs of people from different social strata of the population, different in age, beliefs, and abilities. The content of freedom of speech is very broad, it covers the right to openly express one’s thoughts, beliefs, ideas, both orally and in print, in works of fine art, scientific research, fiction and music

But freedom of speech cannot be unlimited. The interests of preserving peace, security, and culture have developed a number of restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech. In paragraph 3 of Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that the exercise of freedom of speech may be limited to protect state security, public order, public health and morals, and to protect the rights and reputation of others. Based on these considerations, the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 2 of Article 29) and laws prohibit propaganda or agitation that incites social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity. Promotion of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic superiority is prohibited.

The provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation have found their development in administrative, criminal and civil legislation. Thus, restrictions on freedom of speech introduced to protect the honor, dignity and reputation of citizens and associations are contained in the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Mass Media” (1991), which provide that moral harm caused to a citizen as a result dissemination by the mass media of untrue information discrediting the honor and dignity of a citizen, or other non-property damage caused to him is compensated by a court decision by the mass media, as well as by the guilty officials and citizens in the amount determined by the court, and in addition in this mass media a refutation is published.

The right to freedom of thought and speech is inseparable from the right to freely seek, receive, produce and disseminate ideas and information of all kinds, regardless of state borders, orally, in writing or through the press, artistic forms expressions, as well as in any other way of your choice.

This constitutional right (Part 4 of Article 29) is implemented primarily through the media (television, radio, newspapers, etc.), which are currently the most effective way searching, receiving and distributing information.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 5 of Article 29) guarantees freedom of information, censorship is prohibited. As for information constituting state secrets that cannot be freely disclosed, their list is given in the Law “On State Secrets” (1993). In Art. 5 of this law is given detailed list information that may be classified as a state secret, in particular this information:

in the military field;
in the field of economics, science and technology;
in the field of foreign policy;
in the field of intelligence, counterintelligence and operational investigative activities.

There is no doubt that freedom of speech and freedom of information enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation are important democratic institutions. But, as mentioned above, these freedoms cannot be used to the detriment of the rights of other citizens protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and other laws, to the detriment of the health and morals of the population.

In the hierarchy of value orientations that determine human activity and behavior, a person assigns one of the important places to freedom. Freedom of the individual- this is her ability to act in accordance with her desires and intentions. The condition for personal freedom is the ability to choose one or another goal, one or another method of activity, one or another attitude towards the situation and the world, while being aware of one’s responsibility for the choice made and its consequences.

The condition for personal freedom is the ability to choose, which in the history of philosophy has been considered from different positions:

■ determinism;

■ indeterminism;

■ alternativeism.

Representatives determinism believed that in any situation of choice there is only one real possibility, which determines the choice itself. The remaining possibilities are only formal. The extreme manifestation of determinism is fatalism- a worldview based on the thesis of the absolute primordial predetermination of all human views and actions. Fatalism thus denies any possibility of choice. The real path is only the one that is predetermined either by dark irrational fate, or by an omnipotent God, or by an inexorable combination of circumstances, the establishment of a strict cause-and-effect relationship.

Supporters of a different point of view - indeterminism- believe that a person has many possibilities and a person is completely free to choose one of them, without any coercion from the outside.

An extreme form of indeterminism is voluntarism- a direction of philosophy that recognizes the human will as the highest principle of existence. In socio-political practice, voluntarism does not take into account the objective laws of historical development, but is guided only by subjective desires and aspirations.

The third point of view is alternativeists, recognizing that in every choice there are necessarily at least two (otherwise it will be a choice without choice) real possibilities. There are only infinitely many possibilities, just as there is no absolute freedom. A person is not free to choose the objective conditions of his activity - this choice is also limited, but he is free to set himself the goal of action, and is more or less free to choose the means to realize these goals. Freedom is always relative, because it is limited. It is limited by life itself, its spatio-temporal framework, possibilities of choice, state laws, and the freedom of other individuals. S. Montesquieu defined freedom as “the right to do everything that is permitted by law,” and the German poet M. Claudius believed that “freedom lies in the right to do everything that does not harm others.”

Back in the 17th century, the philosopher Spinoza defined freedom as a conscious necessity. Hegel revealed the dialectical unity of freedom and necessity. In Marxism, freedom is an activity based on the “cognition of necessity,” according to which the freedom of the individual, the collective, the class, and society as a whole lies “not in imaginary independence” from objective laws, but in the ability to choose, “to make decisions with knowledge of the matter.” For Marxism, freedom is not only the awareness of necessity, but also action in accordance with it.

In the 20th century, the relationship between freedom and responsibility came to the fore. Human freedom, according to Sartre, consists in the right to choose one’s attitude towards the current situation: a person is free to either come to terms with his dependence on the surrounding reality, or to rebel against it. A person shows freedom not so much in the fact that he can change the world, but first of all in the fact that he can change his attitude towards the world, he can make a choice of each of his actions, a free choice of his destiny, choosing his attitude towards the world, towards others to people, to oneself, to life, love, death. Freedom consists in searching for oneself, in choosing oneself. The choice in each situation depends on the values and goals of the person, and the person chooses the values himself. A person, being free, constantly feels his responsibility to the world and people around him. Finally, freedom is limited by the individual's responsibility for his choice of actions and their consequences to other people. And the more freedom of choice, the more responsible a person is for it (“to whom much is given, much will be required”) - this is the other side of “this sweet word “freedom”.” “Although we do not always do what we want, we are nevertheless responsible for what we are. To be human means to feel that you are responsible for everything” (Saint-Exupéry).