Attempts to legalize censorship, will not give effect - expert

- Alesker Bey, members of the Milli Majlis spoke about the drafting of a bill on the joint venture. How do you think, how justified is the development of a separate law on public organization? Can such a step turn the Press Council into a certain state structure?

- There is a law in Azerbaijan on NGOs and Funds. If the talk is about legal support, the Press Council as an NGO, as a self-regulating formation of journalists, is already in the legal field.

But if it's about changing the status of the Press Council under a separate law, then it will become a government institution created on the basis of a certain law.

Journalists created the Press Council as a self-regulating structure, and nowhere in the world self-regulating groups are formed through the adoption of some kind of law. That is, they are in the legal field, they use common opportunities.

Therefore, granting the administrative authority to the Press Council, granting it additional rights on the basis of the law by additional rights is equal to reanimation of the Ministry of Press and Information, which was liquidated in 1998, but under a different name, in a different format.

This is not acceptable for Azerbaijan, as a member of the Council of Europe. After all, on the recommendation of the Council of Europe, official Baku liquidated the Ministry of Press and liberalized the law on the media.

Therefore, I'm surprised that the Press Council gave its consent to this idea, because the members of the Press Council must know for what purpose it was created and what are the standards of the self-regulating structure of the press.

Turning a joint venture into an administrative body will lead to the alienation of its functions, and then it is very likely that journalists will create for themselves another Press Council, as a self-regulating organization.

- The Milli Majlis also discussed the introduction of some amendments to the Law on Mass Media. Attention is drawn to the fact that most of the proposals dealt with the need to change those provisions of the law, where it is said about the inadmissibility of censorship. Can it be said that this is an attempt to reintroduce censorship?

- In fact, there is a process of returning to the situation that existed before 1998, when censorship was abolished. In the same year, the Ministry of Press and Information was abolished. But both happened because in 1998 the articles of the Constitution adopted in 1995 came into force. That is, in the Article 50 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan it is clearly said about inadmissibility of censorship without any exceptions. The Article does not stipulate that in some emergency situations this may change. Namely: Article 50, paragraph 3, emphasizes that state censorship in the mass media is prohibited. This means that the state, even during an emergency or martial law, should not introduce censorship.

Restrictions can be introduced, but they are not equivalent to censorship. They only indicate "what you cannot write about." And censorship presupposes the principle - "first to check, and then to publish." That is, if there are restrictions, you act by respecting them. And censorship means that nothing can be published until the censor reads and resolves. This is basically equal things.

In 2017, the Law "On Martial Law" was adopted again. In the former law in force before 1998, there is a provision requiring censorship, but in 1998 it lost its force. Because the Constitution and the Constitutional Law "On Normative and Legal Acts" clearly state that if there is a law that is contrary to the norms of the Constitution, it has no legal force.

The Constitution has supreme legal force and direct effect. From this point of view, the requirement of censorship in the article of the Law "On Martial Law", adopted before the adoption of the Constitution, means that this article does not work. That is, it practically loses its function.

However, the adoption by the parliament of a law that contradicts the Constitution means excess of authority. Because Article 71 of the Constitution says that all three branches of power can not restrict rights and freedoms more than established in the Constitution. That is, they can not impose restrictions that are not in the Constitution.

From this point of view, the inclusion of articles on the introduction of censorship in the media into the Laws "On Martial Law" and "On the Emergency Situation" means almost gross neglect of the Constitution and outrage over it.

I think that the Constitutional Court should immediately react to this. Because the function of the Constitutional Court is precisely to oversee the observance of the Constitution.

Parliament, being one of the branches of power, is obliged to act in accordance with the Constitution. Deputies should not be allowed such luxury as a violation of the Constitution.

- In Russia, the social network "Telegram" was closed by a court decision. As a next step, the social network "Facebook" is expected to be banned. There are also often opinions in Azerbaijan about the need to restrict or even block social networks. Can Azerbaijan shut down social networks?

- By blocking social networks, it is impossible to escape from reality. If the government of Azerbaijan wants to ban social networks, then it will be necessary to disconnect the entire Internet. If they think that this will contribute to the development of the economy, the banking system, public administration, the e-government system, then let it shut down. Disabling the Internet means total isolation from civilization. Neither the government nor the individual can do this. Therefore, attempts to block social networks in Russia or elsewhere are in vain.

In our country they block the pages of Radio Liberty, Meydan TV is blocked, but all who want, read and watch them, for it is not difficult to bypass the lock. Therefore, it is senseless to introduce illegitimate legal regulation.

You noted a very important point: these statements, claims, unfortunately, sound at a fairly high level, and, not by chance. It is the policy of those who see themselves as a threat in a pluralistic society.

If we recognize all these by-pass programs (proxy, VPN, etc.) as "criminal", in this case, in such a country there cannot be any talk about democracy, freedom, or rights.

Therefore, I consider all proposals to block social networks completely inappropriate and impossible. Separately, I note that in Azerbaijan social media are controlled and regulated in the legal aspect more than in Russia or in other countries.

The introduction of new points in the Law "On Informatization and Protection of Information" with the aim of including the issue of responsibility for anonymous accounts in the Criminal Code, the provision of exclusive powers to the executive power, severely restrict and restrict the freedom of the Internet. After all this, it remains only to completely limit the Internet itself.

- There is an opinion that reforms will be carried out in the country. Do you think there are signs that there is a probability of reform in the media sphere?

"It's been a long time." To expect reform means to deceive oneself. I do not think there will be any reforms, because a large part of the media broadcasting media are fully controlled and serve very narrow purposes.

But today social media is in demand in the society, and not broadcast media that do not provide pluralism.

Social media is the only medium for discussion and alternative opinion and pluralistic consciousness in Azerbaijan.

True, there are abuses, and such phenomenon as trolls, which work for both the government and the opposition. Nevertheless, many of us can safely bring their opinions to the public. In this sense, I do not think that the media will undergo any reform process.

Unfortunately, in the field of television and radio, the situation will remain the same. In Azerbaijan, people do not read newspapers because of the lack of pluralism. For the same reason, they do not watch television. This has nothing to do with the development of the Internet media, this is the result of unprofessionalism.

For example, in England the most widely read are the media sites. That is, the electronic resources of traditional media are still ahead. This means that traditional media are still in demand. Our problem is not that the Internet has suppressed the media. We have the media moved away from professionalism, from its function, and the emerging void was taken up by social media.

Therefore, until the current policy of coverage of events changes, the control and financing by the government of the media, the expectation of free media and media reforms will remain as expectations.

- Alesker Bey, you have established a new structure - the Media Club. There is an opinion that the Media Club is created as an alternative to the Press Council. What are the main objectives of this structure?

- Specifically, I can say that the reason for creating such a structure is the problems faced by the press, and the search for solutions to them.

The reason is also that many organizations that are called upon to regulate and support the activities of the press and journalists simply turn a blind eye to these processes and even support them.

The authoritative media figures, who have a certain practice, and persons with legal experience gathered in this structure to put on the agenda of the press problem, to make alternative proposals.

Our goal is not to become an alternative to the Press Council. But, if tomorrow the Press Council passes to another legal plane, then, I am sure, there will be a question about some alternative to the Press Council. But it will not be the Media Club.

The media club clearly announced its goals, which are open to any discussions and suggestions. The main goal is to improve the state of media, create a comfortable atmosphere for journalists.

Today, the media - whether social media or other sites - often become a place where people blacken each other. The media should not be like that. Media should be impartial and balanced to cover events, to function freely and to develop.

Journalists should feel free and take up any questions, show society all the problems. Media - this is a kind of mirror, if it is tarnished, it incorrectly reflects the events that occur.

Media Club has been initiated by some persons who agree with this understanding of the tasks and functions of the media. -0-