Manipulative speech strategies of opinion leaders in the structure of verbal crimes.

The subject of the research is the manipulative speech strategies of opinion leaders in the digital environment (primarily influencers and bloggers), considered within the context of their possible transformation into verbal crimes. The focus is not on manipulation per se, but on those forms of speech influence that, under certain conditions, may acquire criminal-legal significance: public calls, justification and romanticization of violence, dissemination of knowingly false information, desacralization of religious objects, normalization of enmity and discrimination. Special attention is paid to how manipulative strategies "integrate" into the elements of the crime composition – the object, the objective side, the subjective side, and the characteristics of the subject – and how the status of an opinion leader enhances the public danger of corresponding statements in the context of the blogosphere and online mass communication. The methodological basis of the research consists of an interdisciplinary approach, a combination of dogmatic analysis of criminal law, jurilinguistic and discourse analysis of the speech practices of influencers, as well as analysis of Russian judicial practice and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in cases of verbal crimes. The scientific novelty of the work lies in proposing to consider manipulative speech strategies of opinion leaders not as a psychological "background" of communication, but as a structural element of the composition of verbal crime, influencing the object of encroachment, the objective side, the characteristics of the subject, and the subjective side. A three-level model of criminal-legal assessment of manipulative statements is justified (substantive-dispositive, contextual-communicative, and result-oriented-evaluative levels), adapted to the specifics of influencers and the blogosphere. Criteria for distinguishing permissible manipulation from criminally punishable speech acts are formulated, taking into account Russian law enforcement and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. It is concluded that it is necessary to consider the communicative status of opinion leaders and the influence strategies they use when addressing questions about the presence of intent and the degree of public danger, as well as the advisability of closer interaction between criminal-legal doctrine and judicial linguistics when qualifying statements in the digital environment.