Member of the Journalists Syndicate Council, Khaled Qudah, told Al-Bawsala:

–The government’s way of dealing with amending the Cybercrime Law will make people reject it before it sees the light

–The law should draw a line between cybercrime and freedom of expression

–The application of “media education” is a long-term treatment for hate speech and cybercrime

–The law may not equate media producers and journalists with anything else that is published on social media

–We call on the House of Representatives to publish the law immediately after receiving it from the government to spark a public debate on it

–The right to information law is the first to be urgent

Amman – Raed Sbeih

Despite the Jordanian street’s anticipation of the extraordinary session that the Parliament will hold next Sunday, and the controversial laws that will be proposed during it, on top of which is the draft amending the Cybercrime Law, no one knows until this moment what the government has in store for this law in particular, which raises the tension. Controversy and fears about public rights and freedoms.

“compass“I interviewed a member of the Council of the Journalists Syndicate, Khaled Al-Qudah, on this issue, and discussed with him the concerns expressed by the Jordanian street regarding the amendment of the Cybercrime Law. to consult on one.

Be careful before making judgments

However, the judges emphasized a set of general principles that call on the government and parliament to expedite the presentation of the amended cybercrime bill for public dialogue, so that everyone can discuss it, dispel concerns about it, and put forward observations and amendments that ensure the preservation of public rights and freedoms.

The judges said: We are all aware that crimes have increased and the methods of committing them have increased, but the means have changed through electronic means today, and we are talking about fraud, extortion, illegal selling, content theft, financial manipulation and all these things.

He added, “We do not criticize the legal amendments regarding such crimes, on the contrary, we encourage everyone who wants to provide societal protection at all levels and spare citizens exposure to fraud through websites and all subsequent crimes, including extortion, unlicensed selling, drug trafficking, and exploitation of children and minors.” And promoting everything that is rejected in our society.

The judges added, however, on the other hand, we see that there should be an isolation between these cases and issues of freedom of expression. This issue is not dealt with through the Cybercrime Law, but rather other laws must be relied upon.

Protecting the security of information and society

He pointed out the need for this law to return to its origin in protecting information security and protecting society from any possible crimes that could be committed through this tool.

He explained that “fear always arises from areas of convergence between these crimes and issues of freedom of expression.”

The judges said: We are afraid that phrases such as “character assassination” and “hate crimes” will appear in the law. Who defines such phrases?

He asked: Do we need to amend the cybercrime law? Yes, we need to amend the cybercrime law, and we are talking about increasing the use of these tools.

However, we are looking forward to the existence of clear boundaries between freedom of expression and cybercrime issues.

The judges added by saying: That is why we have always said: There must be a clear law for the media, and it carries general principles, stipulating the preservation of freedom of expression for citizens, and that they have the right to express their opinion and expression as guaranteed by the constitution for them, and it is forbidden to arrest anyone based on expressing his opinion. .

And he stressed that there must be protection for media and journalistic institutions to lead public dialogue on such issues, and the journalistic product is not equated as being measured by everything that is produced on social media, and therefore matters must return to their origin, pointing out that a news article is published. In a newspaper, it is held accountable for publishing it in the media and is not held accountable for being a product on social media, and therefore it must be returned to the original and held accountable according to the Press and Publication Law.

The law was not presented for public debate

Qudah expressed his regret that the law is still unclear until this moment, and has not yet reached the Journalists Syndicate or any other syndicate, which will reflect negatively on the opinion of the Jordanian street about it.

He pointed out that the general social situation provided an environment for many parties and society that rejected the law before seeing it.

The judges said: We must take a moment and call on the government to publish the text of this law for public opinion so that a public dialogue can be held about it, and we are sure that people will go in the direction of approving a large part of it, but they will have observations on issues related to freedom of expression.

He pointed out that if the government did not publish it, then we call on the parliament to publish it in full after it reaches the parliament from the government, so that the dialogue becomes constructive, and the dispute over some issues that will revolve around controversy, but you will find that the majority supports 70-80% of the law. .

The judges added: However, we will have observations on some loose terms and how they can be controlled, and the other issue is the existence of buffer zones between freedom of expression and cybercrime.

Insult and insult issues are not freedom of expression

And he stressed: We fully acknowledge that cases of insult, insult and defamation are not freedom of expression at all, and it is not permissible to deal with these transgressions as freedom of expression.

Al-Qudah continued, “We are talking there about a person who expressed criticism of any public figure or prime minister. We should not be afraid of multiple interpretations of this criticism, whether it was issued by the media or from social networking sites.”

Al-Qudah said: In the second centenary, we should start enacting laws on the basis of the rights of Jordanians, not their duties. In other words, we have always advocated that before the laws are amended, a legislative environment must be created that defines the rights of Jordanians, and the first right should be their right to obtain information.

The Right to Information and Media Education Act

The judges said: The first law to be applied and to take the form of urgency in the special session is the law on access to information, and if it is approved well, it will not allow rumors, hate speech, and other reasons that led to the demand for the cybercrime law.

He pointed out that the other important matter is that the principle of media education must be spread, and we do not want it to be what the government sees today in five-star hotels only in courses and conferences. Rather, it must come down to reality and there should be a comprehensive national program that goes towards dealing with this issue.

And he stressed that media education is useful because it calls on society to reject any behavior that is strange to it. Whoever puts hate speech through communication sites, whether it is related to gender, race, color or religion, let us be absolutely sure that society will face such behavior with its rejecting comments.

Qudah said, “Therefore, we must train and educate society from an early age to differentiate between freedom of expression and hate speech, and there is no effective tool for detecting such speeches, such as media education.”

And he emphasized that “the best thing is for the community itself to reject the crimes punishable by law, and we have often seen many cases when a post is posted on social media, we find that the comments of the people of the same community reject this speech and the post if it commits transgressions, and this deterrent punishment by the community.” .

He explained that if someone goes beyond logic and reasonableness through hate speech aimed at personal interests or waging dialectical wars, etc., we want people’s comments to be the ones that punish and criminalize such speech, and this is the role of media education by providing long-term treatment.

The judges added, however, that cybercrime laws usually penalize and criminalize, but do not provide solutions, and we call on the government to publish this law and open the door for dialogue.

He pointed out that if the government insists on secrecy about the law, and the special session will start next Sunday, this means that the law in its final form is ready.

At the end of his remarks tocompassThe judges called upon the House of Representatives, upon receiving this law and before its first reading, to publish it for dialogue and conduct a public debate about it, and certainly the community will approve it with some observations on the terms of the law, each according to its competence, and on some of the articles contained in it, warning at the same time that “the continuation of The government, in dealing with the amendments to the law in this way, will push people to reject it before it sees the light.”

(compass)