Human rights groups, activists, and journalists in Jordan have expressed concern over a draft cybercrime law, which they claim will affect the right to free speech and expression, the right to privacy and anonymity, and the right to information. The law has been tabled in the Jordanian parliament for discussion. Lawmakers will be deliberating on 41 amendments the government has introduced to replace the existing 2015 cybercrime law. The proposed law has provisions for jail time and financial penalties, which could be as high as 25,000-50,000 Jordanian Dinars.
According to reports, the proposed law bans VPN technology, which is used widely by Jordanians to circumvent restricted internet access in the country. Furthermore, it introduces criminal charges related to the use of the internet and social media, such as undermining national unity, inciting immorality, spreading fake news, character assassination, and publishing hate speech. Human rights groups have demanded that the draft law be scrapped as it poses a threat to the digital rights of Jordanians.
Opposition to the bill is also growing among the general public. Hundreds of protesters, organized by a “coordinating committee” formed by activists, gathered in front of the parliament in the capital Amman on Wednesday. They marched in the central downtown area of the city, demanding that the House of Representatives withdraw the bill. Activists and others also protested online using the hashtag ‘a state not a prison.’ Various civil society groups and political parties participated in the protests.
A number of opposition political parties have criticized the draft law, with the Jordanian Workers’ Party’s Secretary-General Rula Al-Hroub saying that it is in violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the constitution.
Reporters without Borders (RSF) said, “With its imprecise language and punitive approach, it allows prosecutors to exercise tighter control over online media and encourages self-censorship. We urge the Jordanian parliament to reject this proposed law, which should be replaced by one that protects the public’s right to be informed and does not threaten press freedom.”
