Will Internet TV-channels be licensed?

***

-  The National Council on Television and Radio (NCTR), in the draft law "On Mass Media" provided for a simplified licensing system for Internet TV channels. To obtain a license, it will be enough to comply with the requirements established by law and apply to the NTRC. Do you think this is correct? Why should licensing of Internet TV channels be mandatory or based on the law?

-If the government justifies the need for a new draft law on the media, it must implement it by seriously discussing with the media community, in particular, with the criticizing media community. Since Azerbaijan has been a member of the Council of Europe since 2001, media legislation has been fully formed in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Now, in order to introduce any innovations in the media sphere, international expertise is required. In particular, the expertise of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Since the OSCE media office functions in the aspect of freedom of the media directly in the OSCE area.

The second important point is that the adopted law, in general, should be clearly defined in which case the state can interfere in the activities of the media, and in which not.

The media is a sector where the government's ability to regulate its activities is severely limited. The media must be free. It is they who must exercise public control over the activities of the government. Naturally, in this case it will not be easy to obtain a license from the government and control it. Practice shows that in this regard, it is generally accepted in the European space that the media, Internet media should not be licensed in any form, except for those cases when television and radio broadcast their programs on national frequency resources.

If we consider the articles of domestic legislation, we will find that the provisions of the Law "On Television and Radio Broadcasting", then the powers of the National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting are limited only to licensing frequencies.

This is reflected in our legislation so, because it is a norm of international law. In this regard, the second part of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the second part of Article 9 of the UN Covenant on Civil Political Rights contains specific criteria related to these issues. In addition, the European Court of Justice has a very clear case law in this regard, which clearly states that in such matters the government no longer has a chance of interfering with the media. That is, there is no longer any room for maneuver in terms of expanding the scope of licensing and compliance with permits.

Therefore, this bill should be brought up for discussion. For those who broadcast on the Internet, and especially privately, only general obligations on the legality of broadcasting content should be defined. That is, such moments as non-admission of defamation, manipulation, a call for a change in the state structure, a call for the violent overthrow of the constitutional order, incitement to hatred and others are unacceptable from the point of view of general content. They also exist in the current legislation. In other words, I do not think that there are gaps associated with this in the current Law. A larger restriction - that is, licensing of television broadcast over the Internet - will be seen as serious government interference with the media, and a country with non-free media will definitely be the subject of more serious international condemnation and criticism.

-There are two specific requirements for Internet TV channels. First, the channel must have its own site and broadcast from this site. Secondly, the duration of the broadcast is at least 6 hours a day. How realistic do you think it is to impose such requirements on Internet television?

- It is not so easy to put forward any requirement for Internet TV channels and implement it. Other steps must be taken in parallel.

Along with the blocking of Azadlig Radio, Meydan TV and other sites, all sites that are not in the az domain and have not received a license will have to be massively blocked throughout the country.

But this is not a solution to the problem. Because with the help of VPN and Proxy programs, the groups engaged in television broadcasting via the Internet to Azerbaijan will continue broadcasting anyway. This will not only be ineffective, but it will also be seen as a step backwards and damage the country's image. Therefore, it is pointless to discuss the conditions here. Such a system should not exist. The Internet is a resource with a fairly wide audience. Millions of people have access to and the right to the Internet. TV and radio transmitters, infrastructure, frequency use require additional funds. Not everyone is able to use these standards. This is why it is licensed. Therefore, it is unacceptable to impose strict restrictions on a resource that does not have restrictions, to put forward conditions for broadcasting time and the availability of a license.

- Obviously, the requirements for Internet television to provide frequency are not limited to this. If we proceed from the realities of Azerbaijan, then, probably, illegal demands will also be put forward. Because in Azerbaijan, Internet resources that do not have the opportunity to openly express their opinion and have created a haven for themselves in Internet resources will not be easily admitted to frequencies. Perhaps the goal is to seize control of these overly daring TV channels and establish control over them?

-It is not excluded. In Azerbaijani reality, we often come across such a practice. According to Azerbaijani laws, to register an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization), you just need to submit documents and register. However, in practice, this requires letters of recommendation from individual structures of ministries that correspond to the profile of these NGOs. If all this takes place, if there is a certain patron, a person in the government who will take responsibility, then this organization can register.

Practice shows that if they want to raise such cases to the rank of law, this means that someone's permission, letters of recommendation will be indirectly taken into account. And this, of course, will stimulate broadcasters in a discriminatory manner and lead to the proliferation of products with different content.

Those who are too critical and want to do business in a more democratic, free environment will begin to be suppressed. We have already seen this in practice. There are cases in the European Court of Justice about frequencies granted by the Broadcasting Council. These cases are associated with a negative response to the data of such a reliable and independent media structure as the Turan news agency. Based on this practice, I would argue that if there are already thoughts about licensing, then in practice it will be applied more severely and more restrictively than it is stipulated in the law.

-If Internet TV does not want to broadcast on the frequency, how will it be regulated?

- It does not follow from this law that Internet television can be provided with frequencies. There is an easier way to license Internet TV. That is, after registration, not all Internet TV channels will be provided with a national frequency. Expectations in this sense are in vain. This is due to the fact that national frequency resources are limited, and upon obtaining a license, they will also have the opportunity to broadcast via terrestrial devices. The cost of ground installations is very high. And the government is not very interested in this either.

Until now, the government has shown with all its appearance that it is rather cool about the ability of everyone to have a frequency and go on the air at any time. Now on the agenda is the question of establishing control over Internet television, which is distributed via the Internet and today does not have any restrictions.

- The talk about frequencies caused the beginning of intrigues. The heads of a number of TV channels, using their own airtime, are calling for the closure of some high-rated Internet channels. Is it fear of competition or are there other material and other reasons for this?

- In Azerbaijan, the lured media have always been jealous of independent media. This is the reality. While the lured media broadcast only what they were ordered to, the independents could speak more freely. Therefore, there are more independent media outlets on the Internet.

Apart from the Internet, there is no other possibility for independent broadcasting. And today such calls are heard because of the felt shame for jealousy and betrayal of the principles of journalism.

- Is there a need for any new or old law for the free, normal functioning of Internet television, the media in general? And if there is a need for some kind of law, then what should be provided for in it?

- The current legislation restricts the media much more than the legislation that was adopted 20 years ago, when we joined the Council of Europe.

Over the past 15 years, since 2005, Azerbaijani legislators have studied in such detail and in detail, so taken into account all the points that the current legislation allows interference in many more areas.

Normally, the state should not interfere in media affairs. The state should simply prepare the environment and establish certain keys for access to information so that the media can receive accessible information from all state, official structures, including legal entities and individuals that are the owners of information, and not have any restrictions on their activities. This is the state's commitment to the media.

The state should not be concerned with determining who the professional broadcaster is. This is not the responsibility of the state.

The state can only license a limited frequency resource. The purpose of legislation is to create an environment, to operate in an environment that will not harm others, and at the same time create legal liability if it does.

In the current legislation, the scope and restrictions are spelled out very extensively. In none of the Council of Europe countries, with the exception of Azerbaijan, defamation is not applied in this way. There are 4 different defamation articles in our criminal law. These are all articles used daily. At the same time, the Law on Information gives the administrative body the right to block online media and even do it without a court decision. This in itself is a rather illegitimate and restrictive step.

I think there is a need to amend the legislation, to liberalize it. No need for new restrictions, licensing, licensing system. Therefore, those who form state policy in this direction must once again think and act on the basis of the criteria of how much the government can interfere in the affairs of the media in such matters. The government should no longer be able to influence the media. If such opportunities exist, it means that the media are under pressure and cannot perform the function of public control over the activities of the government.