If the Russian regime is so popular, why does it need to invest into limiting freedom of expression?

Question

According to this article, Putin has signed two laws that further limit freedom of expression (law source):

Two new laws in Russia jeopardize the privacy and security of internet users and aim to further control Russians’ freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today.

The legislation, signed into law by President Vladimir Putin on July 30, 2017, bans anonymous use of online messenger applications and prohibits the use of software to allow users to circumvent internet censorship. The new laws are part of Russia’s widespread crackdown on online expression, in violation of human rights law and democratic safeguards.

This is not something new according to this article:

Since 2012, the Russian authorities have intensified a crackdown on freedom of expression, selectively casting certain kinds of criticism of the government as threats to state security and public stability and introducing significant restrictions to online expression and invasive surveillance of online activity.

While new restrictions on freedom of expression appear to target political opposition or civic groups, they affect all Russians. Curbing free speech denies a voice to anyone dissatisfied with the ongoing economic crisis or even mildly critical of Russia’s foreign policy.

However, according to Telegraph, Putin seems to be a very popular leader, popularity that might be envied by other important leaders such as Donald Trump or Theresa May:

Russian President Vladimir Putin is viewed favourably by a big majority of his citizens, according to new research.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that 87 per cent of Russians have confidence in Putin’s ability to do the right thing on world affairs.

The immense support bestowed upon him is a notch higher than many other politicians, making him one of the most popular leaders in the world.

Question: So, if the Russian regime is so popular, why does it need to invest into limiting freedom of expression?

Those against it represent a rather small minority that does not seem to pose a serious danger to the current regime.

Answer 1

TL;DR: The answer to "why" is because limits on freedom of expression makes the regime less disliked (your question is confusing cause and effect - the popularity of the regime is a consequence of limits on free expression) and reduces both the effort required to stay in power and the likelihood that it falls out of power. It's as simple as that.

---

Stratfor (pretty much any of their publications about USSR/Russia internal geopolitics would serve as citation) usually stresses that this is due to the combination of the following factors:

1. Russia is - and has been since 17th or 18th century - a federated empire (loosely using the term, I'm open to a more precise technical term). It is extremely heterogeneous, especially ethnically (native Slav Russians are an overall 80% majority in RF but not in all regions; and were even smaller in USSR and Czarist empire, with total all Slavs only being 75%); but also ideologically.

   As such, there are very strong political centrifugal forces; which have succeeded in breaking the empire apart before (in 1917, and in 1991).

2. Russia has unfavorable economic factors - the lack of inter-country navigation combined with out of date technological base combined with entrenched culture of corruption means far more relative expenses and greater friction in economic activity and far lower average standards of living (not exactly helped by 70 years of Socialism; but Russia was economically screwed over by the Czars for centuries before that; and by post-Soviet governments after that too).

   This means that the government can't easily buy the good will of the large percent of the populace with economic satisfaction, unless oil prices are booming - as happened in 1970s under Brezhnev or 2000s under Putin.

These two factors combined means that Russia has to expend far more effort at keeping itself whole and its population in line, compared to, say, USA.

Internal security and lack of political freedoms are two major levers towards that effort. They are among the major reasons Putin is so popular - nothing damaging to his regime is allowed to be known by the masses; and no popular opponents are allowed to gel to challenge him beyond a couple of tame ones.

Answer 2

That's how successful Autocracy works. Inspire radical nationalism where possible (see: Cult of Personality), put the fear of god into the rest. You can see this today in China and Turkey in addition to Russia. Xi in China touts a comparable approval score to Putin in this article's calculations, and Erdogan is reported similarly. All of these countries have oppressive regimes where anyone who vocally disapproves of the country is liable to disappear.

Why are approval rates so high then? The cost of voicing disapproval is much greater than the benefit gained from opposition, any media that isn't saying their country is the best in the world is shut down, and relatively speaking the living conditions of each country aren't bad enough to warrant revolt. In other words, the 'popularity' is a result of the limited freedom, it's not inherent to the regime.

Answer 3

I'll take a jab at what the official explanation for restricting the freedom of speech is, from most sensible to the least:

Democracy is overrated, we need a strong leader to run the country efficiently

This argument is absolutely true, in theory. A benevolent dictator can be a lot more effective than popularly elected leaders as they can implement the best policies with little regard to what the opposition says. China's success shows it's absolutely possible to achieve amazing results without even pretending to be a democracy.

But in practice, no dictator is ever benevolent in the full sense of the word and many are downright malevolent and corrupt to the core. Even China is facing a lot of issues over nepotism and corruption, which would be easier to prevent in an open society.

If we have the freedom of speech our enemies will use it against us

This is true in part, as even the leaders of the US and the EU admit that foreign actors are successfully influencing domestic elections, both through direct monetary contributions (see Marine Le Pen's party and Russia) and indirect manipulation of the public opinion (Russia Today, spreading "fake news").

However dictators conveniently forget that it's often far easier for foreign states to influence the local politics in non-transparent systems, as it's easier to obfuscate bribes to high level officials. Likewise it's easier to combat "fake news" when you have a developed media ecosystem of your own.

We don't need free elections as the opposition sucks anyway

Here the dictators conveniently forget that all viable candidates are promptly jailed (see Navalny and Khodorkovsky in Russia), exiled (Dalai Lama in China) or outright killed (Boris Nemtsov in Russia). But unfortunately people who don't have access to open media fail to see the holes in this argument so many actually believe that no good competition can run against the great leader.