Penal Code
Article 297 - Amended according to Law 239 on 27/5/1993 Every Lebanese who broadcasts abroad while he is aware of the matter is false or exaggerated news that undermines the prestige of the state or ...
More DetailsNot Compliant with Standards
Analysis
The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights must be clear, when it comes to the the flexible phrases used (the legitimacy of the state and its financial position) in the text of the article to restrict freedom of expression, although it aims to protect the alleged legitimate interest of the state related to public order, it lacks of limited and clear standards that determine the nature of harming the prestige and scope of the state or harming its financial position. This would create a wide discretion for the authorities to use these flexible terms to restrict freedom of expression and circulation of information in a way that affects the essence of these two freedoms, making these restrictions do not truly meet the objectives of achieving the intended public interest. The Human Rights Committee, in Comment No. 34 on Article 19, held that “For the purposes of paragraph 3, the rule to be regarded as a 'law' must be formulated with sufficient precision in order for an individual to control his or her conduct in accordance with it, and must be made available to the general public. The persons responsible for its implementation have absolute discretion to restrict freedom of expression.” Nor shall these restrictions jeopardize the right itself. The restrictions stipulated in Article 292 of the Penal Code absolutely prohibit the right to criticize heads of state and their political representatives, and the principle of acquittal is not applied if an act of defamation is proven against them, without any legitimate legal justification or necessity. In addition, the penalty of imprisonment prescribed for demeaning these personalities is considered disproportionate to the act prescribed in a democratic society and in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant. (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19 of 2011). Also, the penalty is imprisonment of up to six months, which is prescribed for the acts. Those that fall within the broad criminalization circle of this article are disproportionate to the actions that this article may affect.
Recommendations
Abolishing the loose and elastic phrases such as “exaggerated” and “state prestige” and defining the actions that are considered to be the dissemination of false news with the intention of clearly harming public peace and security, provided that all texts related to the subject and also stipulated in the Publications Law are unified and the unjustified imprisonment penalty is abolished.
Penal Code
Article 319 (amended by Law 239 on 27/5/1993 ) - Whoever discloses by one of the means mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of Article 209 fabricated facts or false allegations to cause a dec ...
More DetailsNot Compliant with Standards
Analysis
The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights must be clear, when it comes to the flexible phrases used (the legitimacy of the state and its financial position) in the text of the article to restrict freedom of expression, although it aims to protect the alleged legitimate interest of the state related to public order, it lacks of limited and clear standards that determine the nature of harming the prestige and scope of the state or harming its financial position. This would create a wide discretion for the authorities to use these flexible terms to restrict freedom of expression and circulation of information in a way that affects the essence of these two freedoms, making these restrictions do not truly meet the objectives of achieving the intended public interest. The Human Rights Committee, in Comment No. 34 on Article 19, held that “For the purposes of paragraph 3, the rule to be regarded as a 'law' must be formulated with sufficient precision in order for an individual to control his or her conduct in accordance with it, and must be made available to the general public. The persons responsible for its implementation have absolute discretion to restrict freedom of expression.” Nor shall these restrictions jeopardize the right itself. The restrictions stipulated in Article 292 of the Penal Code absolutely prohibit the right to criticize heads of state and their political representatives, and the principle of acquittal is not applied if an act of defamation is proven against them, without any legitimate legal justification or necessity. In addition, the penalty of imprisonment prescribed for demeaning these personalities is considered disproportionate to the act prescribed in a democratic society and in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant. (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19 of 2011). Also, the penalty is imprisonment of up to six months, which is prescribed for the acts. Those that fall within the broad criminalization circle of this article are disproportionate to the actions that this article may affect.
Penal Code
Article 320- Every person who invokes the same means to incite the public is entitled to the same penalties: either to withdraw money deposited in public expenditures and funds. Or to sell state bonds ...
More DetailsNot Compliant with Standards
Analysis
The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights must be clear, for the flexible phrases used (the legitimacy of the state and its financial position) in the text of the article to restrict freedom of expression, although it aims to protect the alleged legitimate interest of the state related to public order, it lacks of limited and clear standards that determine the nature of harming the prestige and scope of the state or harming its financial position. This would create a wide discretion for the authorities to use these flexible terms to restrict freedom of expression and circulation of information in a way that affects the essence of these two freedoms, making these restrictions do not truly meet the objectives of achieving the intended public interest. The Human Rights Committee, in Comment No. 34 on Article 19, held that “For the purposes of paragraph 3, the rule to be regarded as a 'law' must be formulated with sufficient precision in order for an individual to control his or her conduct in accordance with it, and must be made available to the general public. The persons responsible for its implementation have absolute discretion to restrict freedom of expression.” Nor shall these restrictions jeopardize the right itself. The restrictions stipulated in Article 292 of the Penal Code absolutely prohibit the right to criticize heads of state and their political representatives, and the principle of acquittal is not applied if an act of defamation is proven against them, without any legitimate legal justification or necessity. In addition, the penalty of imprisonment prescribed for demeaning these personalities is considered disproportionate to the act prescribed in a democratic society and in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant. (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19 of 2011). Also, the penalty is imprisonment of up to six months, which is prescribed for the acts. Those that fall within the broad criminalization circle of this article are disproportionate to the actions that this article may affect.
Publications Law
Article 5 - The obligator specified in the article 4 is imposed on every foreign publication distributed in Lebanon. If it does not comply with the order, it is prevented from entering Lebanese territ ...
More DetailsNot Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Article 4 requires the director in charge of a publishing house or digital bulletin to publish what the Minister of Information requests of correcting or refuting false or fake news related to a public interest under penalty of imprisonment for up to three months for each refusal or abstention. The penalty can be doubled and the publication suspended for a period of two months. The penalty of imprisonment and disruption of the publication is not commensurate with the act or refusal to publish the news of the correction or falsification as long as there are available means to publish the correction or denial.
Publications Law
Article 3 (amended by Law 330 on 18/5/1994 ) Paragraph 1- Subject to the provisions of Article 25 of this Legislative Decree, if a publication publishes false news that may disturb public peace, the o ...
More DetailsPartially Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Paragraph 1 of Article 3 includes vague and elastic phrases that make the aspects of a false news crime not based on credible material or moral criteria. The article penalizes the publication of any false news that would disturb public peace. How can it be ascertained that a news item would disturb the public peace without this being accompanied by other realistic and tangible elements that can be verified? That is why this article leaves great discretion to the public prosecutions and judicial authorities in pursuing information circulating and classifying news as threatening or non-threatening to public peace without any clear criteria for that.
Recommendations
Amending, reformulating and defining the acts considered to be spreading false news with the intent of clearly harming security and public peace, provided that all texts related to the subject and also stipulated in the Penal Code are unified and the unjustified imprisonment penalty is abolished.
Publications Law
Article 4 (amended by Law 330 on 18/5/1994 ) - If a publication publishes false or false articles or news related to a public interest, the Minister of Information may request the responsible director ...
More DetailsNot Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Article 4 requires the director in charge of a publishing house or digital bulletin to publish what the Minister of Information requests of correcting or refuting false or fake news related to a public interest under penalty of imprisonment for up to three months for each refusal or abstention. The penalty can be doubled and the publication suspended for a period of two months. The penalty of imprisonment and disruption of the publication is not commensurate with the act or refusal to publish the news of the correction or falsification as long as there are available means to publish the correction or denial.
