INTRODUCTION

Since Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, there has been growing tension between the Jordanian government and the independent press, particularly the kingdom's small-circulation weekly newspapers. Journalists and editors have been arrested, detained and prosecuted for violations of both the penal code and provisions of the press and publications law of 1993.1 By the count of one Jordanian weekly newspaper, since the law went into effect sixty-two cases have been brought against journalists and editors, the overwhelming majority of them with weekly newspapers.2 The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) documented the cases of five editors and publishers, and six journalists, who were arrested and detained between July 1996 and October 1996. One case involved Hilmi Asmar, editor-in-chief of the weekly al-Sabeel, who was arrested in September 1996 "because of an article in which he described the alleged torture of an Islamic activist by Jordanian security officials."3 In advance of King Hussein's visit to Washington in April 1997, CPJ charged that press freedom in Jordan had deteriorated further in 1997, citing additional cases of the prosecution and conviction of journalists earlier in the year, and called on the king to "cease immediately the arrest and criminal prosecution of journalists for the practice of their profession."4

Faced with public opposition to normalization of relations with Israel, frustration about the implementation of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and popular discontent with the state of the economy and high rates of unemployment and underemployment, Jordanian authorities have clearly signaled a growing discomfort with the exercise of freedom of expression by both individual critics and the press. In December 1995, Leith Shubeilat, a prominent independent Islamist, elected president of the Jordan Engineers Association and former member of parliament, was arrested. He was denied bail, and charged and tried in the state security court for "lèse majesté" (offending the dignity of the king), a criminal offense under article 195 of the penal code. The evidence presented against Shubeilat - a vocal critic of Jordan's peace treaty with Israel, and the government's economic policies - included copies and recordings of controversial speeches that he had made in various cities in 1995, as well as a copy of a speech written in 1994 but never delivered.5 In March 1996, the security court convicted Shubeilat and sentenced him to a three-year prison term; after being held behind bars for almost one year, he was released by order of the king on November 9, 1996.

In August 1996, violent anti-government protests erupted in Karak in southern Jordan in reaction to a doubling of the price of bread; the unrest spread to other nearby towns and also reached Amman, the capital. Fourjournalists, a publisher and an editor were hauled into court for their coverage of the events, which authorities charged had incited sedition.6 In the aftermath of the unrest, King Hussein indicated that new restrictions on the media might be forthcoming. "The media disarray, which is eating at the foundations of the national edifice and the accomplishments of the homeland, needs to be reformed so that all sides may rise to the appropriate level and so that the rock-bottom degeneration reached by some in the name of freedom of expression may be checked," he said.7 Just before the new amendments to the press and publications law were made public, the king again criticized the press: "The press is not reflecting the correct image about the country which we know," he said in a speech to senior military officers in May 1997. "This distortion should stop."8

AMENDMENTS TO THE PRESS AND PUBLICATIONS LAW

In May 1997, the council of ministers amended various articles of the 1993 press and publications law and King Hussein endorsed the new law by royal decree. The revisions of the law went into immediate effect on May 15, 1997. Because Jordan's two-chamber National Assembly was not in session at the time, the council of ministers used the authority granted to it in the constitution to promulgate the amendments as "provisional" law, fully in force but subject to approval or amendment by parliament once it reconvenes after the parliamentary elections scheduled for November 1997.9

Content Bans

Article 40 of the 1993 press and publications law imposed a regime of censorship on ten wide-ranging subjects - some of them extremely broadly worded - that applied to all forms of written and pictorial publication. The subjects included the king and the royal family, news about the armed forces or security agencies, proceedings of the closed sessions of parliament, and articles or information personally insulting to heads of state of Arab, Islamic or "friendly states."10 The amendments to the press law maintained and expanded the content bans, imposing staggering restrictions on all forms of published information, including news, analyses, opinions, reports, drawings, and photographs. Article 40(a) of the amended press law explicitly bans publication of any material that:

* offends the king or the royal family.

* pertains to the Jordanian armed forces or security services, unless such material has been cleared for publication by the appropriate authority or the government's official spokesman.

* disparages religions and creeds whose freedom is provided for in the constitution.

* harms national unity or incites criminal action or foments hatred, discord and disharmony among members of society.

* offends the dignity or personal freedoms of individuals or harms their reputation.

* involves derogatory, libelous, or abusive remarks about Arab, Islamic, or friendly heads of state, or sours the kingdom's relations with other nations.

* promotes perversion or leads to moral corruption.

* shakes confidence in the national currency.

* features false news or rumors detrimental to the public interest or state agencies or their personnel.11

After the amendments became law, Prime Minister Abd al-Salam al-Majali noted in an interview that the aim of the government was to set forth "taboo" subjects and to punish violators.12 The Jordan Press Association termed the content bans "ambiguous." Indeed, the broadly formulated language of the content restrictions can be interpreted by authorities to rule out the publication of virtually any critical news, information and analysis related to the conduct of public affairs by King Hussein, government ministers and ministries, and the internal security forces. In addition, news and other information related to foreign affairs is also affected by the ban on "abusive remarks" about heads of state and material that "sours" Jordan's bilateral relations. Similarly, news and commentary about religion, social relations and social affairs in Jordan could be sharply circumscribed by the broadly worded language which bans material deemed to be harmful to national unity, disparaging of religion, detrimental to the public interest, and promoting social "disharmony" or "perversion." The vague language used in the content bans is open to arbitrary interpretation by authorities in order to impose substantial fines on journalists and editors under the law (see below).

The chilling effect of the content bans is obvious. As one Jordanian human rights activist told Human Rights Watch: "Any journalist who wants to write now will be afraid of writing."13 Former Minister of Information Mahmoud al-Sharif concurred: "This will serve as a permanent threat to journalists in carrying out their duties. Theyare now terrorized by this new law."14 The English-language daily Jordan Times said that the amendments "make a mockery of the concept of free expression," and registered its opposition in an editorial:

Amending the law, especially in the way it was done, has been tantamount to blaming the press for problems that our economy faces, for divisions in the Arab world and here at home, and for the faltering Arab-Israeli peace process. Some, maybe even most tabloids, may have violated "ethical standards," insulted public figures, or simply broke the law. But does that mean that all newspapers, journalists, and freedoms have to be punished and curtailed, through the force of a Draconian law?....Freedom of expression, the government must realize, is not only a coordinate of democracy. It is a prerequisite for it. In the absence of a free press nobody will believe that there are going to be free elections, clean water, and true accountability by the government.15

Last, in a particularly disturbing development, the amended law imposes prior censorship on news and other information related to Jordanian security or military forces, stating that publication of such material is banned unless it has been vetted and approved "by the appropriate authority or the government's official spokesman."

Penalties for Violations: Fines, Suspension and Closure

The government emphasized that the amendments abolished provisions of the press law that permitted journalists to be imprisoned. "An imprisonment penalty no longer exists for journalists. Penalties are restricted to fines," Minister of State for Information Affairs Dr. Samir Mutawi said in an interview. "This was always a point raised by some human rights institutions. So we completely canceled the imprisonment penalty. Therefore, a journalist who violates the Press and Publications Law will only be fined."16 In fact, the only provision of the 1993 press law that provided for the imprisonment of journalists was article 44, which prohibited owners, editors and journalists "from receiving any financial aid or gift from any local or foreign party without the [information] minister's approval." Article 49 of the law provided for fines as well as four to six months imprisonment for such an offense. It is the amendment of article 49 that the minister cited.

The new amendments specify exorbitant monetary fines for violations, as well as suspension of newspapers and other publications and, for repeated offenses, closure. Fines can be levied against a chief editor or "the author or compiler of the offending material."17 Violations of the content bans carry fines ranging from a minimum of JD15,000 ($21,135) to a maximum of JD25,000 ($35,225). Such hefty financial penalties clearly will have the intended deterrent effect, and force many journalists and editors to engage in self-censorship.

In cases of violations of content bans, courts of law may also suspend a publication. "The minister [of information] may allow the lifting of the suspension once the fine fixed by the court has been paid and in accordance with a set of assurances and conditions to be decided by him," the law now states. If there is a repeat of the violation of certain provisions of the law within a five-year period, publications not only face fines but also can be ordered by the courts to suspend publication for periods ranging from three to six months. For an additional repeat offense within the same five-year period, the courts are empowered to revoke the license of a publication.18

Sharply Increased Capital Requirements for Weekly Publications

The amendments also impose prohibitive new capital requirements on weekly newspapers, increased twenty-fold from the requirements set forth in the 1993 press law. Weeklies now must have minimum registered capital of JD300,000 ($422,700) in order to be licensed, compared to JD15,000 ($21,135) previously.19 The weeklies have three months to comply with the new financing requirements, which are expected to put many of these low-budget publications out of business.

According to international news agencies, there are about twenty weekly newspapers in Jordan. Although their circulation is small, these publications "are often boisterous opposition papers, splashing their front pages with stories of political corruption and popular discontent at Jordan's peace treaty with Israel."20 The daily Jordan Times wrote that the tabloids "in spite of their crude tendencies...have provided an alternative to the mainstream press which so far has not assumed its role as watchdog on behalf of the people over official business."21 The publisher of The Star, an English-language weekly, said that his newspaper would be threatened by the new capital requirement:

This paper is among Jordan's oldest weeklies. Being a weekly newspaper it now finds itself threatened by the new law, which requires us to register [it] as JD300,000 establishment. We were never considered, nor do we consider ourselves, as a sensational and irresponsible newspaper that has abused its freedom. And yet the new law has passed a heavy sentence on us. There is much more at stake here than closing down a few rogue weeklies. Silencing the weeklies, The Star included, will not serve democracy, nor will it advance and protect freedom of the press in Jordan.22

Other Restrictions on the Operation of Privately Owned Publications

The amendments regulate the media in other ways as well. One provision limits who may serve as chief editors of publications. These positions are now restricted to Jordanian citizens who live in the country and have a minimum of ten years of experience as full-time journalists, which imposes a particular burden on low-budget weeklies.23 The amendments also limit the content of what specialized publications may publish, banning them from "printing material other than that for which [they were] licensed."

Government Officials Justify the Measures

Jordanian government officials vigorously defended the press law amendments. Dr. Samir Mutawi, minister of state for information affairs and official spokesman, charged that some newspapers had caused "severe damage to the homeland." He elaborated:

Violations by the press have damaged our relations with some Arab states and created a dark cloud. We were constantly receiving complaints from these states and we were also receiving complaints from Jordanian expatriates. Some of these papers have invaded the private lives of citizens and damaged their reputation and honour. Some papers also tried to incite sedition and fragment thehomeland's social fabric....Recently, matters have got out of hand and so we had to reconsider this law to protect the unity of the homeland and this is what we have done.24

Prime Minister Abd al-Salam al-Majali justified the amendments by questioning the right of newspaper owners to free expression within the pages of their publications:

[M]any people complain about the press, especially the weeklies....They all complain that the press is harming both the government and individuals, government officials and ordinary people alike. Making fun of a personality [who] works in the government and publishing scandalous pictures and so forth is bound to cause harm....[N]o individual can decide how the newspaper works and what it should publish. There must be an establishment to avoid irresponsible behaviour. The press is an authority, more so than the government. Have you ever heard the government levelling abuse in the press against anyone? The government does not do this, but when an individual owns a newspaper, he can do it.25

For his part, King Hussein expressed clear annoyance that the leaders of Jordan's independent, nongovernmental professional associations had joined in the criticism of the amendments (see below), implying that such groups have no role to play in defending freedom of expression. "Let us hope that the time will come when everybody will confine their activities to their work," he said in a speech on May 27, "so that the person who is responsible for the union of veterinarians [one of the professional associations in Jordan] will not threaten or announce resignation in protest against the press law amendment." The king added: "I do not understand the connection between veterinary work and the press. What is the link between them? Why don't he and his colleagues work in their profession?"26