JORDAN: COURT RULING THREATENS FREEDOM OF

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 000252

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y (CHANGE TO PARA #3)

SIPDIS

FOR DRL AND NEA-PRESS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/25/2020
TAGS: PGOV KDEM SOCI JO
SUBJECT: JORDAN: COURT RULING THREATENS FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION/PRESS

REF: 09 AMMAN 1423

AMMAN 00000252 001.3 OF 002


Classified By: Ambassador R. Stephen Beecroft for reasons 1.4(b) and
(d).


1. (S) Summary: Journalists and non-governmental
organizations are up in arms about a ruling by Jordan's
highest court subjecting online media to the country's Press
and Publications Law (PPL). Non-governmental organizations
and journalists assert the government will use the ruling to
curb the dozens of Jordanian news sites (and possibly blogs,
Facebook, and Tweets) that write on "taboo" topics not
covered elsewhere and encourage reader commentary. The
Minister for Media Affairs publicly stated that the court's
decision was "precedent and "must be respected." The Chief of
the Royal Court and the King's media advisor told the
Ambassador that the Court's ruling was unwelcome and that the
government planned to pass in the near future a criminal
cyber security law based on international standards, as well
as replace the PPL once a new elected Parliament was in
place. End Summary.


2. (SBU) On January 19, nineteen of Jordan's online news
sites publicly threatened to take measures to oppose the
Court of Cassation recent ruling that subjects online media
to the country's Press and Publication Law (PPL),as passed
in 1998 and most recently amended in 2007. The onlines
threatened publishing boycotts and the issuance of blacklists
of government officials and private individuals deemed
adversaries of online media.


3. (C) The Court of Cassation ruling stems from a case
between plaintiff and editor Ahmad Salamah of the now-defunct
weekly Al Hilal newspaper and defendants Samir Hiyari of
Ammunnews.com and Sakhr Abu-Anzah of Rumonline.net. In 2008,
Salamah brought suit against the defendants for defamation,
citing the Press and Publications Law. The PPL stipulates
damages of JD 500 - 1,000 ($700 - $1,400) for "publishing
material that harms the diginity and personal freedoms of
individuals, or any material that includes false information
or rumors about them." The Court of First Instance ruled that
onlines were not subject to the Press and Publications Law and
the Court of Appeals subsequently upheld that verdict.
In mid-2009, however, Salamah's lawyer requested the Minister
of Justice to refer the case to Jordan's highest court, the Court
of Cassation. The Minister signed off on the request in 2009, according
to the Center for Defending the Freedom of Journalists' Nidal Mansour,
and the Court of Cassation ultimately ruled that the PPL did in fact
apply to this case.


4. (C) The Court of Cassation's decision was made known in
mid-January in an announcement by Minister of State for Media
Affairs and Communications Nabil Sharif to four Arabic
dailies, according to Ammun editor Basil Okoor. (Note:
Okoor is scheduled to participate in the March 6-20
International Visitors program, "The Role of Media in U.S.
Foreign Policy.") Sharif told the Jordan Times on Jan. 14
that "the court's decision has set a precedent and must be
respected."


5. (C) While NGOs and journalists admit most online sites
fail to follow professional standards, they also assert the
government will use the court decision to silence discussion
of "taboo" topics. Since their emergence around five years
ago, online news sites and blogs have enjoyed a relatively
large margin of freedom in reporting and publishing reader
commentary. (Note: In a 2009 survey 94 percent of journalists
in Jordan reported exercising self censorship. Related to
that is Freedom House's 2009 report on Jordan deemed "not
free" in terms of freedom of the press. End Note.) In
discussions with Info Officer, online editors have pointed to
their ability to report, for example, on police brutality and
tribal unrest, which previously went uncovered by other
media. Their reporting has encouraged print media to expand
its coverage to these topics, online editors have asserted.
Online editors have also cited reader commentary as
contributing to public debate on controversial issues,
although they admit that readers rapidly resort to insults
and threats during these discussions.


6. (C) The court ruling threatens to squelch the emergence
of online debates, according to two media non-governmental
organizations, as well as journalist contacts. The head of
the implementing partner for USAID's media strengthening
project, Francesca Sawalha of the International Research &
Exchanges Board (IREX),told Info Off that the PPL is not in
accordance with international standards for freedom of
expression for several reasons, including that it:

--requires journalists to be members of the Journalists
Professional Association;


AMMAN 00000252 002.3 OF 002


Classified By: Ambassador R. Stephen Beecroft for reasons 1.4 (b) and
(d).

--defines who can be an editor;

--enumerates a long list of "taboo" topics, including:
disparaging the King and the Royal family; harming national
unity; insulting heads of Arab, Islamic, or friendly states;
shaking confidence in the national currency; and inciting
strikes, sit-ins, or public gatherings in violation of the
provisions of the law.

--broadly defines publications as "any media in which
meanings, words or ideas are expressed in any way whatsoever."


7. (C) Sawalha and others stated the press law's vague
definition of media, its fines, and the risk of lengthy court
cases could affect freedom of speech on blogs, Facebook,
Tweets and even e-mails and SMS messages. In a Jan. 13 press
release, the London-based human rights organization, Article
19, asserted that the court's decision "empowers authorities
to prosecute or impose fines on journalists, bloggers and
editors for publishing online material that may be deemed
offensive or imply criticism of the government, national
unity or the economy." The head of Jordan's Center for
Defending the Freedom of Journalists, Nidal Mansour,
speculated that the law would result in a doubling of court
cases against journalists, which currently stands at
forty-five.


8. (S) Chief of the Royal Court Nasser Lozi and media
advisor Ayman Safadi told the Ambassador on Jan. 20 that the
Court's ruling was unwelcome and that the government planned
to pass in the near future a criminal cyber security law
based on international standards that would supersede it.
They acknowledged that the PPL was flawed, asserted it would
not apply to blogs or Tweets, and said they planned to
replace it once a new elected Parliament was in place.
Separately, the Minister of Information and Communication
Technology Marwan Juma told USAID Mission Director that he
and the PM opposed the current Press and Publications law,
but blamed its passage on a previous administration. He
asserted, however, that media should not "bad mouth the King"
and called on journalists to be responsible.


9. (C) Comment: Whether or not the King or the new
government of PM Samir Rifai were behind the ruling in an
effort to stifle online debate, many in Jordan believe that
they were. Rumors have been running rampant since the summer
that the King is angered by potentially divisive online
reporting and commentary, for instance on possible Jordanian
concessions in any Israeli-Palestinian peace deal (reftel).
Rumors also speculate that Minister of Justice Ayman Odeh
signed off on the Court of Cassation's examination of the
Salamah vs. Ammun and Rumonline because he was angered about
online reporting and comments suggesting his teenage son's
death in a high-speed car crash was God's punishment for
reckless behavior. The Embassy has no reason to believe this
latter rumor is true. Nonetheless, the rumors reflect public
perception, which will be further shaped by whether and how
the government enforces the new ruling and whether it passes
new legislation. Until that time, the threat of court cases
and fines under the law will almost certainly have a chilling
effect on discussions in online media.
Beecroft