Azerbaijan.US
Azerbaijani economist and public figure Natig Jafarli has sharply criticized recent amendments to the law “On Information, Informatization and Protection of Information,” warning that the new provisions could open the door to arbitrary enforcement.
The changes introduce a new article prohibiting the dissemination of content deemed to offend “public morality,” show “open disrespect toward society,” or contradict “national and spiritual values” when displayed publicly. Violations may result in fines ranging from 50 to 2,000 manats or administrative detention of up to two months.
According to Jafarli, the core problem lies in the lack of clear definitions and measurable criteria. In a detailed statement on social media, he raised a series of questions about how the law would be implemented in practice.
Among them: who will oversee compliance with the new rules, and how will authorities determine whether specific content violates “national and spiritual values”? Jafarli noted that the law does not define these values or provide any official list or reference framework.
He also questioned whether enforcement decisions would be based on clearly established criteria or on the personal views and worldviews of individual officials. “Without precise standards, the law leaves too much room for subjective judgment,” he said.
Jafarli further asked how “disrespect toward society” would be assessed in practice, pointing out that the concept could be interpreted selectively. He questioned whether the dissemination of false or misleading information by officials – which may insult public intelligence – would fall under the same definition.
Another concern raised was proportionality of punishment. Jafarli argued that the law provides no guidance on how authorities would distinguish between minor and severe violations, or how courts would determine whether a case warrants a small fine, a larger penalty, or administrative detention.
He also highlighted the absence of any publicly available explanation regarding what constitutes an “immoral gesture” or how such determinations would be made.
In conclusion, Jafarli referred to a long-standing legal principle dating back to early legal systems: laws that impose penalties must be clear, specific, and independent of personal interpretation. In his view, the newly added article fails to meet that standard.
“Rules that rely on vague concepts and individual discretion cannot function fairly,” he said, adding that such legislation risks undermining legal certainty rather than strengthening public order.
