Hate speech


Publications Law

Article 25 (amended by Law 330 18/5/1994 ) If a publication published something that contained insulting one of the recognized religions in the country, or that would stir sectarian or racial strife, ...

More Details

Not Compliant with Standards


The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights must be clear, for the flexible phrases used 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.


Abolishing the loose phrases and defining the acts that are considered to be the dissemination of false news with the intent 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.

Other Themes