Trump provokes tightening control over social networks in authoritarian countries

***

-Khalid bey, Donald Trump's order on social networks has raised this issue in Azerbaijan as well. The Milli Majlis is discussing social networks, and government officials are commenting on the issue. Do you think that Trump's decision will give an opportunity to the government to regulate social networks in the way that the government wants in Azerbaijan?

-I do not think it will be successful to compare the experience and laws of the United States and Azerbaijan in this matter. It should be taken into account that US law provides for a wide range of opportunities for the right to freedom of expression. Legislation regulating US communications ethics prohibits individuals from suing against social media companies regarding defamation, insult, or humiliation on those platforms. That is, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other networks are not responsible for the content shared there. The recent noisy resolution of the US President does not change this situation. This decision, however, has the potential to add new nuances to the interpretation of existing legislation on communications ethics. Even if this happens, it is not plausible to assume that the opportunity to sue social media companies will affect the practice of US courts, which value freedom of expression. In general, this may be worrying in terms of the reality of the United States but it is not new for countries like ours. The social media aspect of our right to freedom of expression legislation is already quite problematic. The legislation has recently undergone quite reactionary changes in this regard. In addition to all this, it should be noted that the United States, at least, encourages the expression of potentially restriction initiatives on freedom of expression and decision-making in other developed countries and encourages countries like Azerbaijan to tighten restrictions. However, we must not forget that Azerbaijan is a member of the Council of Europe, which values the right to freedom of expression, and must comply with the standards of this organization against the background of its obligations.

-In their speeches, the Azerbaijani authorities call social networks a "moral terror" and a "virtual terror" platform. Is there such a case in Azerbaijan? If so, how to deal with it?

-Such expressions, which value social networks, are very common, and in many cases, it is the same approach of the authorities to freedom of expression and critical content. It is impossible to describe social media separately from the realities of Azerbaijan. For 20 years, the print media in Azerbaijan lived in the golden age. There was freedom of the media, pluralism, criticism, tolerance of criticism. But then that media was disbanded, and the controlled print media deprived us of it. We have had to watch even more weighty of the current trends on social media platforms from government-controlled TV channels, which broadcast on national frequencies. You reap what you sow. In short, as in all media, there are problems in the Azerbaijani segment of social media. However, this problem is not a problem brought by social media but it is the result of the government's wrong, oppressive, restrictive media policy. If this policy continues with restrictions and oppression, the insults, slanders, and humiliations that everyone is concerned about will find their way again and come our way. The way to get rid of this is to provide the media with the necessary environment for action.

-The issue of social networks has been discussed in Azerbaijan for years. In this regard, the law has been amended several times and there have been court decisions. Apparently, the government is concerned about the activities of social networks. Now it seems that it has an opportunity. Why the government is afraid of social networks? Why does it beware?

-Unfortunately, our government has always been wary of the media, especially critical media. This approach has been prevalent for more than 20 years. At first, they were afraid of the TV and radio media. In the first 5-6 years of independence, television and radio media were almost completely under control. At the time of being accepted by the Council of Europe, improved legislation regulating this area was later restricted. The regulatory body - the Television and Radio Council - is also under full government control. Then it was the turn of the print media. While the print media was living its golden years and months, it was gradually taken under control. All this took place against the background of severe pressure on journalists, the fact that Azerbaijan is ahead of the countries participating in the OSCE in terms of the number of imprisoned journalists. Later, the same policy continues to be pursued in relation to Internet media. The government does not like free, volatile media. In light of the experience we have mentioned, it would not be logical to expect a different approach to social media from the government. Those who manage properly and execute fairly should not beware of social media, in general, and use its power.

-Some government officials in Azerbaijan condemn international organizations that if such an order or decision had taken place in another country, it would have been described as a violation of freedom of expression. But those international organizations cannot say a word to Trump. Is there a violation of freedom of expression in this matter and can it be described as a violation of freedom of expression?

-Whether it is Russia, China, or the United States, important institutions are quite adequate to any significant event related to the media and freedom of expression in these countries. Both the US president's latest decision and his controversial approach to the media have been widely criticized as much as deserved by key institutions in this area. It is also necessary to calculate the limitations that any seemingly restrictive decisions can bring in reality. For example, it is incorrect to equate the legal regime created by the decree of the President of Russia with the consequences of the order of the President of the United States. Against the background of the presidential-dependent judiciary and the legislature, such decrees in Russia mean a change in all relevant practices as soon as possible. Not so in the United States. First, it should be taken into account that the decision of the President of the United States does not provide for interference in social media, but is aimed at making it more difficult for social media owners to interfere in the content shared by individuals on social media. Second, the president's decision is not enough to change the legal regime. There is the Congress, there is the Senate, there are other instances where the mechanisms work. Most decisions must also be reviewed and passed through these instances. Third, even if we assume that the decision has gone through all these stages, then there is the judiciary, which attaches great importance to the right to freedom of expression. It would be naive to expect decisions from the judiciary that would interfere with social media and freedom of expression to the extent expressed by our officials. The noisy decision of the US President only raises the possibility of a new interpretation of the legislation on communication ethics. What does it mean? The legislation on US communications ethics virtually bans lawsuits against social media platforms for deleting users' sharings. The law also justifies this with "well-intentioned interference". So far, the fact that social media platforms have exceeded the limits of "well-intentioned interference" has been brought to court and has not been confirmed. The decision of the President of the United States may simply make the interpretation of this provision subject to scrutiny.

-What can be done in Azerbaijan to prevent insults and swearing on social networks, as well as not to violate freedom of expression? What would you suggest?

-In my opinion, in this case, we have enough experience to choose the right path. Our policy experience, both in terms of television and radio media and in terms of print media, is enough to avoid mistakes this time. The government created a regulatory body to control television and radio, imposed strict controls, and this media almost completely lost public trust. It then set up agencies to control the print media. It first took control of the Press Council, then set up other aid funds. The result was no different, with the existence of Internet media, newspapers with a circulation of 20-25 thousand can no longer sell 1,000 copies. Even the tightly controlled print media has lost credibility. It is necessary to turn away from these mistakes. The right way to deal with content such as fake news, slander, insults, swearing is not to take strict control. There must be a media that the public trusts and relies on, and that guards the public interest. To do this, the government must remove the legal barriers to that media from being created by the experience.