In Azerbaijan, Martyrs’ Names Used for Public Shaming: An Ethical and Legal Dilemma

On a quiet morning in early September, a social media storm erupted in Azerbaijan. Farid Pardaşunas, a member of the Board of the Press Council, publicly accused Wikipedia contributors of removing thousands of articles about martyrs who had died in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. His posts claimed that nearly 3,000 entries had been deleted, an action he vowed to address by appealing to law enforcement and the State Security Service.

In a country where martyrs hold a revered place in the national memory, the accusations were enough to stir public sentiment. And with Pardaşunas’ claims endorsed by the chairman of the Press Council, Rashad Majid, the controversy began to spiral.

What followed was an outpouring of public shaming on social media. Pardaşunas, doubling down on his accusations, specifically targeted Wikipedia contributors, launching campaigns that were both personal and political. On the receiving end, Wikipedia editors accused Pardaşunas of harboring personal bias.

But behind the scenes, many began to question the ethics of such actions. Khalid Agaliyev, a prominent lawyer specializing in media law, offered his insights during an interview with ASTNA, examining both the legal and ethical ramifications of the situation.

* * *

Question: Khalid bey, we have seen public figures increasingly using the names of martyrs as a tool to defame others and publicly shame them. How ethical is this?

Answer: Defaming or publicly shaming individuals for their opinions is an archaic practice, almost a relic of the feudal era. To use the sacred memory of martyrs—who should be symbols of national pride and unity—as a weapon to achieve personal or political goals is deeply troubling. In my view, this approach deserves the harshest criticism.

A responsible society engages in discussions, particularly when issues spark public concern. If one side exploits its power to unfairly tarnish the other’s reputation, the underlying issue remains unresolved and will eventually resurface, often in a more damaging way. Such tactics are not only unethical but, in some cases, may even lead to legal consequences. This kind of public shaming is not a solution; it's a temporary diversion.

Question: The Press Council supported the individual who raised these concerns publicly. Is this within their mandate? What should the Press Council's role ideally be?

Answer: From a standard perspective, any discussion that involves defamation or public shaming is grotesque. While I haven’t followed the specific case in detail, generally speaking, the Press Council, by definition, is a self-regulating body designed to oversee media and journalism standards. Its main mission should be to foster freedom of speech and mediate conflicts related to that freedom.

For the Council or its members to take a clear stance in such disputes—whether positive or negative—compromises its impartiality and weakens its ethical standing. Instead, the Council should aim to create a platform where these disputes can be discussed reasonably and without bias. This would not only help resolve the conflict but would also enhance the organization’s credibility.

Question: Legally speaking, how could this situation have been handled?

Answer: When calls are made for public shaming, especially targeting specific groups or individuals, certain legal conditions must be met for liability to arise. It’s important to remember that legal frameworks governing social discourse are sensitive and must be carefully measured. Azerbaijani law prohibits incitement to hatred or hostility, as well as actions aimed at limiting the rights of individuals.

If a public figure with significant influence makes such a call and there’s a realistic chance that unlawful actions will follow, legal measures can—and should—be implemented. But it’s not just about making an inflammatory statement; there must be a tangible risk that the statement could lead to illegal activity. In that case, legal intervention becomes necessary.

Question: How can those who are publicly shamed defend themselves?

Answer: This is primarily an ethical issue, but Azerbaijan has strict laws that regulate defamation and similar disputes. If someone believes they have been defamed or their reputation has been damaged, they can challenge it in court. Our legal system provides mechanisms for individuals to seek recourse in such cases.

Long-Term Consequences

Question: What do you think could be the long-term impact of this kind of public shaming?

Answer: A healthy and safe discussion environment is crucial for any society. However, campaigns of public shaming or defamation that aim to silence one side only serve to push unresolved issues into the background temporarily. The problem doesn’t disappear; it merely festers until it resurfaces, often with the involvement of groups that feel alienated or wronged.

At that point, resolving the issue becomes far more complicated, and the space for reasonable discussion may no longer be available. This is a dangerous precedent, as it fosters an atmosphere of fear and resentment. A situation like this also undermines the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to voice opinions and thoughts—even if they differ from the majority.

Public shaming for differing opinions is unacceptable and poses a direct threat to the realization of the right to free speech.

Question: What steps can be taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future?

Answer: The fact that these incidents are not isolated but recurring—each time becoming more grotesque—suggests that a deeper change is needed. This is not something that can be solved by a court ruling, an official directive, or even public outrage. The environment that allows these situations to flourish must be addressed.

The media, government, and different layers of society, including professionals, all have roles to play. Comprehensive discussions should be held to determine how each sector can contribute to improving the situation. We need to identify the responsibilities of the media and the government in curbing these harmful tendencies. Without significant change, this toxic atmosphere will continue to affect public discourse.