Jordan Starts Blocking 'Unlicensed Websites'

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
Jun 6, 2013 Jordan
[Image posted on the homepages of some banned websites in Jordan. From Al-Bawaba] [Image posted on the homepages of some banned websites in Jordan. From Al-Bawaba]

Jordan Starts Blocking "Unlicensed Websites"

By : Rayna Stamboliyska
The Commission directs you to do what is required to block the websites listed in the attached document and prevent your subscribers from accessing them before the end of today, 2 June 2013. Note that the websites that don’t have a URL in the list, you will be provided with later.
 
What followed was a list of 304 websites.
 

This is the request sent by the Jordanian Telecommunications Regulatory Commission to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on 2 June 2013, and published by Jordanian citizen media platform 7iber. The request is in line with legislation enforced back in September 2012––the Press and Publications Law. The Press and Publications Department, a state entity once formally known as the Censorship Department, is now in charge of applying this law.

Jordan counts nearly five hundred online news outlets. According to the current version of the Press and Publications Law, any such website has to register with the Press and Publications Department in order to obtain a license. Registering is reported to cost one thousand Jordanian dinars (1,400USD). The websites listed in the blocking request are deemed "unlicensed," meaning having neither obtained a license nor applied to obtain one. Reportedly, 102 websites remain accessible for either having obtained a license or for having applied for such within the official deadlines. 

The move caused a deluge of discussions on a wide range of media channels, when Press and Publications Department director denied a fee is required to get registered and after a cement factory website was identified as listed among the websites to be blocked for allegedly manufacturing paper. As no official has offered commentary on these discrepancies, the process through which websites are selected for blocking remains obscure.

Freedom of Speech in Jordan

This is not the first time censorship of online content in Jordan makes the headlines. Several years ago, the Jordanian government approved a code of conduct aiming at fostering “a free and independent media.” In its 2009 annual report, the Amman-based National Center for Defending the Freedom of Journalists concluded that media freedoms deteriorated in 2009. In that year`s report, the OpenNet initiative highlighted the selective censorship of politically-oriented online content, adding that “media laws and regulations encourage some measure of self-censorship in cyberspace.” 

Back in 2010, a vaguely worded provisional information systems law was approved by the cabinet of ministers at the time. Article 13 of this cyber crimes law gives carte blanche to the police to access computers used by journalists from the electronic press without prior authorization from public prosecutors. There were significant concerns that under this law, bloggers, citizen, and independent journalists would be treated in the same manner as credit card fraudsters and websites promoting pornography or terrorism. Acoulso in 2010, a ruling by the Jordanian Court of Cassation classified websites as "publications," thus subjecting them to penalties under already highly controversial Press and Publications Law. In line with the latter, journalists could be sued for anything “deemed offensive or imply criticism of the government, national unity, or the economy.”

Back in 2012, while the Press and Publications Law was still a bill, various organizations drew attention to the proposed amendments warning that these would give the government greater authority to restrict freedom of expression. These amendments were implementing the obligation for news websites to register with the authorities and thus to accept liability not only for any content they publish, but also for the comments published by readers. A serious backlash from journalists and news outlets followed, but the Jordanian government defended its actions. This was happening against the backdrop of censorship moves by Jordan’s Ministry of Information and Communication Technology who contracted an unnamed Australian company to develop systems for filtering pornographic websites, an announcement that was met with resounding criticism.

On 19 August 2012, more than five hundred websites went black in a civil-society-mobilized SOPA-style blackout in protest of the draft Press and Publications Law. The online protest was paralleled by demonstrations outside Jordan’s Parliament and statements against the draft legislation by groups such as Centre for Defending the Freedom of Journalists. Even Queen Noor supported the mobilization through her Twitter account. These efforts, however, did not achieve success. Both houses of Parliament and King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein of Jordan endorsed the controversial media law amendments.

According to Freedom House, which releases free speech indicators on a yearly basis, Jordan is rated as `Not Free` in Freedom in the World 2013, `Not Free` in Freedom of the Press 2013, and was rated `Partly Free` in Freedom on the Net 2012. Recently, a survey by the Centre for Defending Freedom of Journalists showed that eighty-six percent of Jordanian journalists recognize practising self-censorship, an activity they engage into due to governmental attempts to influence their work.

Chilling Effects Reloaded

It is how the Press and Publications Law enacts the mandatory registration of online news outlets with the Press and Publications Department that makes it most ominous. The constraints it imposes over online news outlets act as a straitjacket. Article 49 of the Law requires that any “electronic publication that engages in publication of news, investigations, articles, or comments, which have to do with the internal or external affairs of the kingdom” must obtain registration and licensing from the Press and Publications Department. More precisely, getting registered leads to obtaining a license which makes the websites subject to the general regulations that govern traditional print media––appointing an editor-in-chief who has been a member of the Jordan Press Syndicate for at least four years. The Syndicate-related regulation, however, has not been updated to accept as members journalists working with online outlets. The deadline to get the website registered was 17 January 2013.

The Press and Publications Law appears to be much more than a toothless paper tiger. Journalist who are members of the state-controlled Jordan Press Syndicate are under close surveillance from the intelligence services. In the Hashemite kingdom, the state is the major shareholder of the most popular newspapers (Jordan Times and al-Dustur), thus exerting strong influence over their content. Even though press offenses have supposedly been decriminalized since 2007, journalists in Jordan fear jail as the national legislation contains various provisions that allow such sentences to be enacted. Additionally, the decriminalization of press offenses was paralleled with a significant increase in fines for “defamation” and “insult to religion,” in particular. Moreover, the crime of lèse-majesté persists (punishable by up to three years in jail), which keeps journalists and citizens away from public criticism of the monarch, despite King Abdullah II holding final authority on most matters. Since 2007, online news outlets have been regulated in the same manner as the written press. Thus, jurisprudence being quite unpredictable, convictions against the press continue to occur. Close examination by the intelligence push editors and journalists to be cautious about the positions they adopt, and more particularly driving them to altogether avoid investigative reporting that could compromise political figures.

Comments posted in response to news are growing critical towards Jordan`s King and his government. After the Press and Publications Law was amended back in 2012, several websites switched off comments on their platforms. With bloggers having already been arrested in Jordan and journalists reporting threats and harassment, self-censorship has festered.

And Now What?

Ironically, widespread censorship coincides with the launch of Demoqrati––King Abdullah`s latest initiative to promote "democratic empowerment and active citizenship." In his letter to the kingdom`s citizens, the king speaks about building “political engagement across society:”

By supporting "social entrepreneurs" to have a greater say in public affairs, Demoqrati will help expand the tools and platforms – debate forums, training programmes and others – available to all Jordanians to enable them to be active and engaged citizens.

Demoqrati will initially focus on efforts to increase transparency, provide new ways for Jordanians to discuss and debate critical issues facing the country, and seek to harness the talents and creativity of all Jordanians in the service of society.

It is intriguing, to say the least, how "social entrepreneurs" will be successful and transparency will be increased while it is a matter of emergency to impose a shackling of independent websites through a totally obscure selection process.

At this point, it is not yet clear which ISPs have obeyed the order to block websites. Mainstream media have reported all 304 websites are blocked. Reports from inside Jordan confirm that many of the websites are blocked, and the process is progressing smoothly to encompass all outlets deemed "unlicensed" according to the Press and Publications Department. Daoud Kuttab, founder and editor-in-chief of renowned independent news provider AmmanNet, issued a statement after the website was blocked condemning “the decision [which] violates Jordan’s local, regional, and international commitments,” and naming it “a blow to the country’s standings.” AmmanNet.net was founded in two thousand and is number one on the list of websites to be blocked in the terms of the Press and Publications Law. 

Jordan also enjoys several strong citizens` organizations such as the Jordan Open Source Association (JOSA) who have been tracking various attempts to censor the Internet in the country as well as the Jordan Charter of Digital Rights which provides a form through which blocked websites can be notified. Condemnations from civil society followed shortly after the news broke out: an open-ended sit-in kicked off on 3 June in front of the Journalists Syndicate, and JOSA deplored the decision renewing “its opposition to any attempts on instilling governmental censorship on the Internet.” JOSA rightly pointed out that such technical measures are inefficient. Indeed, AmmanNet`s Daoud Kuttab said he was posting news on Facebook and on other web platforms his company owned that remain unaffected. Others among the blocked news outlets include the popular site jo24.net set up ways to get around the access blockage and alerted subscribers by e-mail. A collection of proxies known as UnCensorJo.net allows internet users from inside Jordan to circumvent blocking, and the Jordan Charter of Digital Rights has set up a guide helping people to access censored content.

Beyond purely technical concerns, criticism has also been addressed once more against the inherent make-up of the law: it is impossible to implement the preconditions in the law because Jordan Press Syndicate refuses to accept the electronic press as part of its membership and mandate. Thus, it is a dead-end situation as the Press and Publications Law requires online news outlets abide to its requirement to have Syndicate members as editors-in-chief. International free speech defenders such as Human Rights Watch have also criticized the move, and Freedom House issued a statement condemning the decision to block hundreds of independent media outlets outlining: 

The requirement that news sites obtain government approval reinforces self-censorship and places a disproportionate burden on editors and administrators to police controversial comments posted to their sites, or risk a hefty fine. In addition, the blocking measures contravene the right of Jordanians to access information from a variety of viewpoints and online sources. Most worryingly, gray areas within the law leave the door open for authorities to unfairly and arbitrarily target websites that question government policies or criticize public officials.

Jordan thus makes a remarkable entry in the club of Middle Eastern countries witnessing continued repression of online freedom of speech––dozens were imprisoned in Kuwait in a state-promoted effort to stop online dissent, a crackdown on freedom of speech disguised as charges for "insult to the Emir." The United Arab Emirates has promulgated a Cybercrime Law in 2012 which already led to people being sentenced to months in jail for "sedition" against the backdrop of the UAE94 trial. And in Qatar, a draft cybercrime law aims at punishing anyone penetrating government websites but also contains provisions about the infringement of "the social principles or values" of information shared online which threatens the little freedom of expression still enjoyed by residents. 

\"\"
[Infographic by: Jordan Open Source Association]
Tags

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Sectarian Violence Sweeps Over Egypt

      Sectarian Violence Sweeps Over Egypt
      On Wednesday 14 August, police forces brutally cleared out two Cairene sit-ins supporting ousted President Mohamed Morsi, which resulted in well over six hundred deaths. Violence swept over the whole

    • Egypt’s Constitutional Referendum Results

      Egypt’s Constitutional Referendum Results
      Based on numbers reported by Egyptian media outlets, below is a summary of the constitutional referendum vote results broken down by governorate.What do these numbers tell us? In two stages of vot
Jan 9, 2012 Lebanon
Maya Mikdashi By :
Maya Mikdashi

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?