As,a matter of fact, it does seem like it was the only reason (distributing “unreliable” informarion about Russian armed forces on the said price tags) https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6339183. What other reasons do you think there were?
Yet another article from Saint Petersburg newspaper (where the artist is from and where the trial took place) if you want to read more details of the case yourself. Google translate can’t seem to handle the url, so I’ll just copy paste the translation.
How the artist Skochilenko, who faces 10 years for replacing price tags in a store, was accused and defended
In St. Petersburg, the trial of the artist Sasha Skochilenko, who is accused of spreading fake news about the Russian army (Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), is coming to an end. Due to the replacement of standard price tags in the Perekrestok store with similar-looking leaflets about military operations on the territory of Ukraine, she faces up to 10 years in prison.
Skochilenko insists that she acted with good intentions and even in the interests of Russia, and the state prosecution claims that she is deliberately lying and sowing panic. About the arguments of both sides during the debate, interrupted due to applause, and the never-ending expulsion of the listeners - in the Fontanka report.
The victims in this case are the people
The final speech of prosecutor Alexander Gladyshev was much shorter than that of the defense - less than 30 minutes. He requested eight years in prison for the artist and another three years ban on administering any pages on the Internet.
For the most part, the prosecutor retold the well-known plot of the indictment: she acted intentionally, was aware of the public danger of her actions, and had the intent to publicly disseminate deliberately false information. True, Gladyshev himself will note a little lower that Skochilenko believed in the veracity of the phrases printed out to her.
The state prosecutor tells a sequential chain of events: in such and such a telegram channel, the accused saw price tags and once placed them in a grocery store on Vasilyevsky Island. In addition, she herself said during interrogation that she “communicates with friends from Ukraine and reads independent news” (a list of media outlets - foreign agents is attached).
Skochilenko’s attitude to the special military operation should also be evidenced by the testimony of witness Alexei Nikolaev, in whose front door she was detained: the artist told Nikolaev about the “price tags” that were placed in Kazan. She will hang the same ones in “Crossroads”.
Gladyshev reads out the testimony of two military registration and enlistment office employees and two military men - all four agree that what is written on the stickers offends them.
After the prosecutor’s speech, lawyer Yuri Novolodsky takes the floor. He promises that the defense will rely only on legal analysis, which, he believes, was neglected by the investigation, “if we seriously referred to the baker’s instructions and the electrician’s instructions from the Perekrestok store.”
The prosecutor interrupts:
— The prosecution did not refer to either the baker’s instructions or the electrician’s instructions.
“Perhaps you haven’t thoroughly studied what came before you.” Your predecessor referred to this as evidence,” Novolodsky retorts.
On the third day of the debate, Gladyshev made an unexpectedly emotional remark. After further words from the defense about the inconsistency of the prosecution, he stated that he was appealing to the people, who “are the victims in this case.” “Alarmism in such a situation is simply unacceptable, and Skochilenko not only did not repent, but also continued to sow panic and spoke out in the process,” the state prosecutor continued. “No one forbids speaking out, but lying, and lying intentionally, is unacceptable.”
Gladyshev also did not agree with the idea that there was no political hatred in Skochilenko’s act, because she, for example, “did not speak in squares or other public places with “Peace to the World,” biblical commandments.” No, the act should be assessed completely differently, because the artist stands “not for peace, but against the military operation.”
Separately, the prosecutor commented on Skochilenko’s assumption that the eight years he requested were related to the artist’s sexual orientation: “This is her choice, we do not judge her for this, and this in no way characterizes her negatively.” According to Gladyshev, he did not immediately understand what the accused was talking about: instead of “girl,” he heard “grandfather.”
“The accusation stood on four legs”
At the hearing on November 13, the defense begins with a conflict. The judge insists that Skochilenko should speak first. The lawyers object: they wanted to speak first and always in a certain order.
“Your honor, it is a direct indication of the law that the defense themselves determine the order [of presentations], but not in the Vasileostrovsky court, it seems,” Novolodsky jumps up.
“Your honor, dear court, I believe that it is necessary to grant the petition,” the artist agrees. She always addresses the court this way: “dear sir.” However, politeness does not matter here - the petition is rejected, although the prosecutor also does not object.
Novolodsky shares a life hack with Skochilenko: refuse to speak now and take the floor later. She agrees. The judge names a new speaker - lawyer Yana Nepovinnova. This again is not the order that the lawyers asked for.
As a result, judge Oksana Demyasheva announces a break to agree on the defense position. They discuss the new introductions for about five minutes and then disperse. Novolodsky argues with the prosecutor across the table, Sasha blows kisses to the photographers.
After a pause, the judge finally agrees to the order that the defenders asked for. Novolodsky speaks first. He immediately assures the judge: “You were wrong to trust the prosecutorial authorities.”
Novolodsky’s speech is based on metaphor. The accusation is a stool, and its legs are evidence. “The prosecution stood on four legs: Skochilenko’s testimony, [linguistic] examination, Nikolaev’s testimony and the testimony of military personnel.” The lawyer lists: Nikolaev recanted his testimony in court, Skochilenko admitted only the fact of distributing price tags, and the military personnel do not show the subjective side of the crime. As for the examination, he considers it unprofessional due to the education of the specialists, truncated formulations and attempts to establish motives. The latter, as Novolodsky assures, should be dealt with by investigators.
As the defense insists, Skochilenko’s motive was not political enmity or hatred. Lawyers do not find hatred in the request to stop the fighting.
Novolodsky states: the same call is now heard “on all continents and at all international summits”; are all these thousands of politicians also criminals?
Neither the prosecutor nor the judge looks at the lawyer. The prosecutor types something on the phone, Demyasheva makes notes by hand. She looks up just a few times. The first is to clarify what equipment is on a tripod in the hall and whether any of the listeners are filming prohibited by the court. The second is when Novolodsky asks her to look at the same price tag about military operations: “Would you like to look, your honor?”
Novolodsky’s speech also contains statements that were unexpected for the defense: about his personal sympathy for the pensioner who complained to the police about the price tags, about fake news in the foreign media, and the fact that Skochilenko herself “may be a victim of an information war.”
“We’re not at the circus”
One of Nepovinnova’s main thoughts is about the absence of the subjective side of crime. The lawyer insists that the prosecution simply “copied” the law and did not analyze the evidence of the defense, the testimony of experts and the artist herself. For the same “price tags,” as Nepovinnova reminds, in other cities they were tried under an administrative article.
Another defense argument is that Skochilenko did not consider the information disseminated to be deliberately false. As evidence, the lawyer cites the artist’s sympathetic messages to her Ukrainian friends. These correspondences were added to the case by the prosecution as evidence of Skochilenko’s guilt.
Nepovinnova ends her speech with a quote from Skochilenko about the humanity test: “You have a chance to pass it.” Some of the spectators begin to applaud. The judge raises his voice: “Those who clapped, leave the hall! We’re not at the circus." The order remains without response. Demyasheva demands that everyone be removed and leaves herself - to the conference room.
Policemen and bailiffs enter the hall, about ten people in total.
Novolodsky uses the pause for an impromptu lecture on history.
“In the Russian Empire, when good lawyers spoke, you could clap,” he says calmly.
Instead of the audience, the prosecutor leaves the hall.
“Alexander Yuryevich, you didn’t clap,” they laugh from the audience. The prosecutor doesn’t pay attention. During the days of the meetings, he had to listen to many offensive words: any passage of Gladyshev along the corridor is accompanied by shouts.
The bailiffs ask either those who clapped or all the listeners to leave the hall at once. They threaten with force, but in the end they don’t take anyone out. After arguments, six people leave, but the judge is not happy with this: the hearing is postponed to November 14.
The debate, despite fears, continues in the open. Defender Margarita Kislyakova begins with Skochilenko’s personality characteristics: she led an active social life, worked in journalism, was involved in charity work, and in 2014 she drew a comic book about depression, which was then used by psychiatrists in their work.
Each of the “price tags,” according to Kislyakova, could be considered truthful by the OSCE mission. However, even its representatives agree that many facts can neither be confirmed nor refuted.
“It’s very painful to watch how a young girl is behind bars for a long time, but with a large number of chronic diseases,” lawyer Dmitry Gerasimov continues the debate. He says the same thing: the information on the price tags was not deliberately false for his client.
Skochilenko herself speaks last in the debate. She says she does not admit guilt in disseminating deliberately false information: “I am deeply convinced that I acted in order to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, as well as in order to maintain international peace and security, but I am afraid that I understand the article differently "
Both bailiffs present in the hall look attentively at the artist. She speaks more and more from herself and reads less: “I am filled with a feeling of compassion. I feel sorry for any soldiers, any civilians in any cities.”
Skochilenko calls the “price tags” printed for the store an art object and does not agree with the prosecutor’s position regarding the eight years of imprisonment: “I categorically disagree with this request. My former neighbor in the pre-trial detention center was asked to serve 8 years for 300 grams of drugs.” Prosecutor Gladyshev also looks at Skochilenko, but then looks away.
Her business, according to the artist, is “as simple as three kopecks.” Skochilenko quotes an employee of Pre-trial Detention Center No. 5, who in a personal conversation once said: “What can we consider there?”
As a result, it took almost 30 meetings to consider the case. The verdict is scheduled to be announced on November 16.
Reference
Artist Sasha Skochilenko was detained in April 2022. She was accused of replacing price tags in a store on Vasilyevsky Island with stickers about events in Ukraine. A pensioner noticed the substitution: she filed a complaint with the store employees, and then with the police. Skochilenko’s actions were assessed as “public dissemination of deliberately false information about the use of the RF Armed Forces based on political hatred” (Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The article provides for a fine of 3 to 5 million rubles, forced labor or imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years.
As,a matter of fact, it does seem like it was the only reason (distributing “unreliable” informarion about Russian armed forces on the said price tags) https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6339183. What other reasons do you think there were?
deleted by creator
I ain’t reading this
Google translated for your pleasure: https://www-kommersant-ru.translate.goog/doc/6339183?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Yet another article from Saint Petersburg newspaper (where the artist is from and where the trial took place) if you want to read more details of the case yourself. Google translate can’t seem to handle the url, so I’ll just copy paste the translation.
How the artist Skochilenko, who faces 10 years for replacing price tags in a store, was accused and defended
In St. Petersburg, the trial of the artist Sasha Skochilenko, who is accused of spreading fake news about the Russian army (Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), is coming to an end. Due to the replacement of standard price tags in the Perekrestok store with similar-looking leaflets about military operations on the territory of Ukraine, she faces up to 10 years in prison.
Skochilenko insists that she acted with good intentions and even in the interests of Russia, and the state prosecution claims that she is deliberately lying and sowing panic. About the arguments of both sides during the debate, interrupted due to applause, and the never-ending expulsion of the listeners - in the Fontanka report.
The victims in this case are the people
The final speech of prosecutor Alexander Gladyshev was much shorter than that of the defense - less than 30 minutes. He requested eight years in prison for the artist and another three years ban on administering any pages on the Internet.
For the most part, the prosecutor retold the well-known plot of the indictment: she acted intentionally, was aware of the public danger of her actions, and had the intent to publicly disseminate deliberately false information. True, Gladyshev himself will note a little lower that Skochilenko believed in the veracity of the phrases printed out to her.
The state prosecutor tells a sequential chain of events: in such and such a telegram channel, the accused saw price tags and once placed them in a grocery store on Vasilyevsky Island. In addition, she herself said during interrogation that she “communicates with friends from Ukraine and reads independent news” (a list of media outlets - foreign agents is attached).
Skochilenko’s attitude to the special military operation should also be evidenced by the testimony of witness Alexei Nikolaev, in whose front door she was detained: the artist told Nikolaev about the “price tags” that were placed in Kazan. She will hang the same ones in “Crossroads”.
Gladyshev reads out the testimony of two military registration and enlistment office employees and two military men - all four agree that what is written on the stickers offends them.
After the prosecutor’s speech, lawyer Yuri Novolodsky takes the floor. He promises that the defense will rely only on legal analysis, which, he believes, was neglected by the investigation, “if we seriously referred to the baker’s instructions and the electrician’s instructions from the Perekrestok store.” The prosecutor interrupts:
— The prosecution did not refer to either the baker’s instructions or the electrician’s instructions.
“Perhaps you haven’t thoroughly studied what came before you.” Your predecessor referred to this as evidence,” Novolodsky retorts.
On the third day of the debate, Gladyshev made an unexpectedly emotional remark. After further words from the defense about the inconsistency of the prosecution, he stated that he was appealing to the people, who “are the victims in this case.” “Alarmism in such a situation is simply unacceptable, and Skochilenko not only did not repent, but also continued to sow panic and spoke out in the process,” the state prosecutor continued. “No one forbids speaking out, but lying, and lying intentionally, is unacceptable.”
Gladyshev also did not agree with the idea that there was no political hatred in Skochilenko’s act, because she, for example, “did not speak in squares or other public places with “Peace to the World,” biblical commandments.” No, the act should be assessed completely differently, because the artist stands “not for peace, but against the military operation.”
Separately, the prosecutor commented on Skochilenko’s assumption that the eight years he requested were related to the artist’s sexual orientation: “This is her choice, we do not judge her for this, and this in no way characterizes her negatively.” According to Gladyshev, he did not immediately understand what the accused was talking about: instead of “girl,” he heard “grandfather.”
“The accusation stood on four legs”
At the hearing on November 13, the defense begins with a conflict. The judge insists that Skochilenko should speak first. The lawyers object: they wanted to speak first and always in a certain order.
“Your honor, it is a direct indication of the law that the defense themselves determine the order [of presentations], but not in the Vasileostrovsky court, it seems,” Novolodsky jumps up.
“Your honor, dear court, I believe that it is necessary to grant the petition,” the artist agrees. She always addresses the court this way: “dear sir.” However, politeness does not matter here - the petition is rejected, although the prosecutor also does not object.
Novolodsky shares a life hack with Skochilenko: refuse to speak now and take the floor later. She agrees. The judge names a new speaker - lawyer Yana Nepovinnova. This again is not the order that the lawyers asked for.
As a result, judge Oksana Demyasheva announces a break to agree on the defense position. They discuss the new introductions for about five minutes and then disperse. Novolodsky argues with the prosecutor across the table, Sasha blows kisses to the photographers.
After a pause, the judge finally agrees to the order that the defenders asked for. Novolodsky speaks first. He immediately assures the judge: “You were wrong to trust the prosecutorial authorities.”
Novolodsky’s speech is based on metaphor. The accusation is a stool, and its legs are evidence. “The prosecution stood on four legs: Skochilenko’s testimony, [linguistic] examination, Nikolaev’s testimony and the testimony of military personnel.” The lawyer lists: Nikolaev recanted his testimony in court, Skochilenko admitted only the fact of distributing price tags, and the military personnel do not show the subjective side of the crime. As for the examination, he considers it unprofessional due to the education of the specialists, truncated formulations and attempts to establish motives. The latter, as Novolodsky assures, should be dealt with by investigators.
As the defense insists, Skochilenko’s motive was not political enmity or hatred. Lawyers do not find hatred in the request to stop the fighting.
Novolodsky states: the same call is now heard “on all continents and at all international summits”; are all these thousands of politicians also criminals?
Neither the prosecutor nor the judge looks at the lawyer. The prosecutor types something on the phone, Demyasheva makes notes by hand. She looks up just a few times. The first is to clarify what equipment is on a tripod in the hall and whether any of the listeners are filming prohibited by the court. The second is when Novolodsky asks her to look at the same price tag about military operations: “Would you like to look, your honor?”
Novolodsky’s speech also contains statements that were unexpected for the defense: about his personal sympathy for the pensioner who complained to the police about the price tags, about fake news in the foreign media, and the fact that Skochilenko herself “may be a victim of an information war.” “We’re not at the circus”
One of Nepovinnova’s main thoughts is about the absence of the subjective side of crime. The lawyer insists that the prosecution simply “copied” the law and did not analyze the evidence of the defense, the testimony of experts and the artist herself. For the same “price tags,” as Nepovinnova reminds, in other cities they were tried under an administrative article.
Another defense argument is that Skochilenko did not consider the information disseminated to be deliberately false. As evidence, the lawyer cites the artist’s sympathetic messages to her Ukrainian friends. These correspondences were added to the case by the prosecution as evidence of Skochilenko’s guilt.
Nepovinnova ends her speech with a quote from Skochilenko about the humanity test: “You have a chance to pass it.” Some of the spectators begin to applaud. The judge raises his voice: “Those who clapped, leave the hall! We’re not at the circus." The order remains without response. Demyasheva demands that everyone be removed and leaves herself - to the conference room.
Policemen and bailiffs enter the hall, about ten people in total.
Novolodsky uses the pause for an impromptu lecture on history.
“In the Russian Empire, when good lawyers spoke, you could clap,” he says calmly.
Instead of the audience, the prosecutor leaves the hall.
“Alexander Yuryevich, you didn’t clap,” they laugh from the audience. The prosecutor doesn’t pay attention. During the days of the meetings, he had to listen to many offensive words: any passage of Gladyshev along the corridor is accompanied by shouts.
The bailiffs ask either those who clapped or all the listeners to leave the hall at once. They threaten with force, but in the end they don’t take anyone out. After arguments, six people leave, but the judge is not happy with this: the hearing is postponed to November 14.
“I feel sorry for any soldiers”
The debate, despite fears, continues in the open. Defender Margarita Kislyakova begins with Skochilenko’s personality characteristics: she led an active social life, worked in journalism, was involved in charity work, and in 2014 she drew a comic book about depression, which was then used by psychiatrists in their work.
Each of the “price tags,” according to Kislyakova, could be considered truthful by the OSCE mission. However, even its representatives agree that many facts can neither be confirmed nor refuted.
“It’s very painful to watch how a young girl is behind bars for a long time, but with a large number of chronic diseases,” lawyer Dmitry Gerasimov continues the debate. He says the same thing: the information on the price tags was not deliberately false for his client.
Skochilenko herself speaks last in the debate. She says she does not admit guilt in disseminating deliberately false information: “I am deeply convinced that I acted in order to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, as well as in order to maintain international peace and security, but I am afraid that I understand the article differently "
Both bailiffs present in the hall look attentively at the artist. She speaks more and more from herself and reads less: “I am filled with a feeling of compassion. I feel sorry for any soldiers, any civilians in any cities.”
Skochilenko calls the “price tags” printed for the store an art object and does not agree with the prosecutor’s position regarding the eight years of imprisonment: “I categorically disagree with this request. My former neighbor in the pre-trial detention center was asked to serve 8 years for 300 grams of drugs.” Prosecutor Gladyshev also looks at Skochilenko, but then looks away.
Her business, according to the artist, is “as simple as three kopecks.” Skochilenko quotes an employee of Pre-trial Detention Center No. 5, who in a personal conversation once said: “What can we consider there?”
As a result, it took almost 30 meetings to consider the case. The verdict is scheduled to be announced on November 16.
Reference
Artist Sasha Skochilenko was detained in April 2022. She was accused of replacing price tags in a store on Vasilyevsky Island with stickers about events in Ukraine. A pensioner noticed the substitution: she filed a complaint with the store employees, and then with the police. Skochilenko’s actions were assessed as “public dissemination of deliberately false information about the use of the RF Armed Forces based on political hatred” (Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The article provides for a fine of 3 to 5 million rubles, forced labor or imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years.