On November 24, a joint online meeting of the Milli Majlis Committees on Legal Policy and State Building and on Human Rights was held.
According to the Parliament’s Press and Public Relations Department, the chair of the Committee on Legal Policy and State Building, Ali Huseynli, stated that the agenda included a single item: a draft law on amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses and to the Law “On Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information.”
It was noted that the main purpose of the draft law is to protect public morality, in particular to shield adolescents and young people from harmful and unethical information disseminated on social networks, as well as to improve existing legislation by clarifying accountability mechanisms in the online environment.
At the end of the meeting, the draft law was recommended for consideration at the Milli Majlis plenary session in its first reading.
According to the draft, it would be prohibited to post information in publicly accessible information resources that involves actions demonstrating blatant disrespect toward society, the use of obscene expressions, or the display of parts of the human body in a manner contrary to moral norms and national and spiritual values.
It was reported that corresponding amendments would also be made to the Code of Administrative Offenses, imposing relevant penalties.
Independent experts believe that adopting this draft would further tighten the law in question. In their view, in many cases, the cited provisions could be used to curtail freedom of expression artificially.
Previously, a number of amendments were made in Azerbaijan to the Law “On Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information.” Amendments adopted in 2017 granted executive authorities the power to block electronic resources without a court decision. In the same year, the websites of Radio Azadliq (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Azerbaijani service), Meydan TV, and the Azadliq newspaper were blocked by court order. This was justified by claims that certain materials published on these sites posed a “threat to interests protected by the law of the state and society.” However, during court proceedings, representatives of the outlets stated that the allegations were unfounded.
In subsequent years, this practice continued.