In order to have a free media, state regulation and interference in the media must be minimized

***

- Alasgar bey, what does the amendment to the Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information include? What is prepared for? What is the purpose?

- The amendment to this law adopted by the Milli Majlis is actually a process that has started since 2017 and continues today. In 2017, a very minor change was made to the law. Foundations for blocking of Internet information resources for something considered harmful were formed without a court order by the Ministry of Transport, Communications, and High Technology (TCHT), by an officer who has no competence. Today it has been further enhanced by making one more addendum to these foundations. Azerbaijan is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the second part of Article 10 of that document allows for any restrictions on the protection of morals and health. The imposition of restrictions may be, in fact, a legitimate goal. But this is a serious problem in terms of its imposing procedure. Because the Ministry of TCHT controls the implementation of this law. Experience has shown that they block not false information but the truth incompatible with the interests of the authorities. With regard to blocking RFE / RL, Meydan TV, and other resources, the OSCE Vienna Office has put forward a position in a very clear way that this is an unlawful, illegal interference with freedom of expression. Now one more addendum was made to that intervention. In practice, as before, there will be abuse, and as the executive body is responsible for identifying what is harmful, he/she will be able to describe any information incompatible with their interests as detrimental information. Normally, a trial may reveal what is false and harmful. However, in the essence of this law, this can be established without a court order, and immediate blocking and other types of liability will be applied. Second, the fact that this issue is presented in this form raises the fact that there is no real executive mechanism. Because the Internet segment is a broad virtual environment and not only in Azerbaijan but also in other countries, there is Azerbaijani-language information in this segment. Since the source and location of such information is not Azerbaijan, the question of what restrictions will be applied to them remains unanswered. They may also be blocked. But sometimes this happens via a social network rather than a particular site. So will the government completely block the social network? Can they do this? If so, what will be the image of Azerbaijan? These questions remain unanswered. If a country falls into the category of the country blocking Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, its identification with countries like North Korea or Iran is inevitable. It is not possible for a state that is a member of the Council of Europe to take this step.

- So after this, can any publication, which causes strong public resonance, be interpreted as detrimental information and can the site owner be punished? Does that mean that the censorship is legalized?

- It happened beforehand too. The sources of information which were not actually a lie but caused a wide resonance in the society were, in one way or another, interpreted as contrary to the requirements of this law and closed. There were 7-8 things in the legislation that they could refer to, and a new one was added now. This has been added as a very broad and open to all assessments, which is regarded as a category that undermines both public health and public order. This will lead to more abuse in the future. There will be no judicial control over this abuse. Looking at the trials that have been going on from 2017 to the present day, it is clear that the courts have not investigated any issues in a fundamental way. It automatically took the side of the Ministry of TCHT and came to the conclusion that they were right. There have been numerous complaints to the European Court regarding this. This process will continue.

- There are opinions that this amendment was made to legislate the blocking of websites and social networks at any time. Is this possible? Will this not lead to more irresistible tendencies?

- As for the blocking of websites, more than 80 resources have already been blocked in Azerbaijan. The US State Department's latest human rights report also shows this figure as 82. Only the first five of these blockings were in accordance with the law, which are azadliq.info, azadliq.org, meydan.tv, Azerbaijan Hour, Turan TV. But the processes that followed it were obviously illegal, and often with outside pirate interferences. Sometimes, when these disputes go to court, officials of the Ministry of TCHT say they have not blocked those resources. But in essence, most of the blocks continue. As for social media, the government will not take a step that would be so harmful to it in the current situation. The government also uses social media as a means of PR. If they do this, i.e. block it, the public opinion of the world will recognize whole information resources and the environment of the country as a non-free and oppressive system. Its place that was already negative today will become even more negative.

- The Ministry of Transport, Communications, and High Technologies is dissatisfied with the decision of the Sabail District Court in 2017 regarding the request to block 5 independent Internet media (azadliq.info, azadliq.org, azerbaycansaati.com, meydan.tv, Turan TV). Now the ministry has appealed to the Plenum of the Supreme Court. In addition, on March 16, by the presidential order, the Special State Security Service was abolished. Three services were created on its basis. One of them is the State Service for Special Communications and Information Security of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Now, changes are made to this law. It turns out that the government is implementing a new information policy and trying to prevent information, which is incompatible with its interests, in the name of security. What do you think the government is afraid of?

- Recently, the Plenum of the Supreme Court was appealed again in connection with the blocked independent media resources and the request to reconsider the decision indicates that the government could not prevent the distribution of their information in the country even though they were under the block. This was already known. We have said from time to time that such a move is quite wrong and it is impossible to solve the problem by limiting access to the internet. Unfortunately, the mentality that does not fully understand the current information environment in the world continues to take the same steps. Therefore, they thought that if other resources distributed this information, others would not circulate. However, if those blocked resources contain any information that is of interest to the public, and that is of public importance, that information will be disseminated in some form. Whether through local resources or social networks, etc. Because that information is a requirement of society. The public sees the negatives, corruption, and so on. At that time, thinking about preventing this access to information is probably the only characteristic of Azerbaijani officials. Because, while the law mentions false information, in practice, it is about the information that is true but is not in the interest of the government. Their spread, in fact, is against the interests of the government. It is impossible to correct mistakes with mistakes. Still, the government is making a new mistake. In general, the government should argue that on the one hand, there are reductions, local governance, more mobilization steps, and on the other hand, what is the point of splitting one institution and creating three different large structural units? This is thought-provoking. Because ministries are abolished on one side, they are merged into other ministries. On the other hand, they divide the State Security Service into three positions and raise each to a separate ministry level. It is certain that this will not be effective. But functionally, again as before, it is likely that the State Service for Special Communications and Information Security will now be given the authority to install and monitor tracking devices to the main providers that bring the Internet to the country. As a procedure, it increases the number of agencies and officials but the essence of what they do is not changed. This is not a reform, but in some way, is to carry out the division of labor at the highest level. Previously, this work was done by a certain body and within the organization by certain individuals and departments.

- What steps should the government take to create a free media, information environment and even prevent such false information?

- In order to have a free media, state regulation and interference in the media must be minimized. The state must ensure a free media environment. The state has an obligation not to interfere in this regard. This freedom is not possible as long as the state intervenes. Second, the most important step in preventing disinformation and creating a secure information environment, in general, is the adequate and prompt delivery of accurate information from the primary source to the public. If the society accepts it in that form, then neither disinformation nor other harmful information will be allowed to circulate. Our government is always lagging behind. It always tries to continue down the road with denials. For example, today there is a threat of a virus. Coronavirus threatens the whole world. Including Azerbaijan. What prevents to share the measures taken 3-5 times a day and information that will comfort the society. This information is shared hourly in different parts of the world. Thus, there is no disinformation environment left. In our case, it is the opposite. First of all, there are long propaganda and false information on Facebook and WhatsApp messages. Then an employee of a ministry comes out and denies it, and then makes another mistake while denying it. We run after information. In an information environment, we can manage information by ourselves and relax society. In this regard, these two aspects are important. The state should not interfere in the information environment and professional information carriers will try to give the most accurate information while maintaining their reputation in society. Second, as the owner of the information, government agencies should not be stingy in providing information from the primary source, should be open and transparent, and should inform the whole society with information.