The Law on Mass Media, much criticized by journalists, was rejected by the old parliament last spring, but was passed in its first reading, following a loud discussion, by the newly convened parliament on September 24, 2003. The adoption of the Law on Mass Media is an obligation taken by Armenia before the Council of Europe. What changed-in the draft or in the attitude of the journalistic community-that made the adoption of the Law possible in its first reading?

We should point out here that one media organization which was against the draft from the beginning - the National Press Club - kept up its opposition to the Law, through picketing and press conferences. Nevertheless, a day before the voting, when it had became clear that the adoption of the Law was unavoidable, the club introduced an alternative draft. The Ardarutyun (Justice) faction took the responsibility for the initiative in the National Assembly, and during the second reading, the Law on Mass Media will have an alternative draft law entitled the Law on Freedom of Press. Other NGOs that have worked with the parliamentary commission and presented proposals include the Yerevan Press Club, the Union of Journalists, and Internews, or so we have been told by the chair of the commission, Hranoush Hakobyan. Nobody from any of the leading newspapers, who will feel the Law on their own backs, took part in the deliberations. Even as the law was being adopted in its first reading, many of them maintained that it was unacceptable. And the media NGOs that Hakobyan said had participated in the process were quick to disassociate themselves from the commission. The Yerevan Press Club and the Union of Journalists, for example, held press conferences to state that if their proposals are not considered during the second reading, they will consider the law unacceptable.

How the European structures can oblige Armenia to adopt a law which journalists believe curtails freedom of the press remains unclear. The drafter of the Law, Deputy Minister of Justice Ashot Abovyan warned journalists, “You will see that this Law will be one of the best, if not the best, among the European laws.” But both opposition MPs and journalists believe that this law is aimed at exerting pressure on non-government-controlled newspapers. Which aspects of the draft were considered most controversial? Let’s look at the arguments of parliamentarians who actively opposed the draft.

Shavarsh Kocharyan (Ardarutyun bloc): “The European notion about the adoption of this law by a consensus involving the journalistic community was violated.”

Arshak Sadoyan (Ardarutyun bloc): “The definition of a Mass Medium is vague - any material of similar subject periodically published in 100 copies, for instance, the National Assembly Agenda, can be considered a medium, which contradicts the word “mass” in the title.” And, “The vagueness of various provisions is aimed at unleashing court proceedings against journalists and mass media.”

Victor Dallakyan (Ardarutyun bloc): “There is no clause on the status of a journalist; the grounds for accreditation are not defined by the law. By not defining the journalists’ rights, the way is being paved for court proceedings, which gives rise to an opportunity for censorship.”

Levon Mkrtchyan (Armenian Revolutionary Federation): “We should reject the clause limiting the advocacy of criminally punishable actions - it is too broad in nature. Such laws and provisions may have negative consequences from the point of view of the future of the state, of changing circumstances.”

Victor Dallakyan went further by proposing that in addition to defining the rights of journalists, a provision should be included to protect journalists by imposing a penalty for hindering their work. The draft’s opponents were concerned about the provisions regarding financial compensation for moral damage in accordance with the Administrative Code, and the provision stipulating a four-times larger fine for slandering an official than an ordinary citizen.

The publication of the names of financial contributors, the definition of the right to refutation, the possibility of being ordered by the court to disclose an information source, the absence of the institution of the free journalist, and other provisions under the heading “Transparency of Financial Sources” were considered unacceptable. The opposition factions believed that the current draft was no different from the one rejected earlier. There was no softening of harsh wording - “a means of exerting pressure upon the freedom of the press”, “the illegitimate government fears the freedom of press”, “nonsense”, etc ...

Meanwhile, both the drafter of the law, Ashot Abovyan, and the chair of the Standing Commission on Education, Science and Culture, Hranush Hakobyan, addressed the criticized provisions one by one to assure the parliamentarians that the amendments proposed by the media NGOs were acceptable to the drafter and the commission, and even though they were not reflected in the draft distributed in the parliament, they would be included before the second reading. Hakobyan considered the absence of any state entity in registering a mass medium, and the imperative prohibition of censorship to be advantages. “We have quite a liberal, democratic draft law, whereas the existing law is much more conservative - it has mechanisms for the suspension of registration, it has limitations on freedom of speech. This draft is a step forward,” she concluded.

Three factions representing the ruling coalition found the draft not to be perfect and agreed with many proposals, but believed that there was enough time before the second reading to amend the draft law. The opposition didn’t believe that all the amendment would be included in the draft before the second reading and suspected trickery here, as did many journalists. In any case, the law has become a kind of stepchild since its adoption in the first reading. In less than a month, the discussion will erupt again in all its bitterness.

One further point-on September 23, 2003, the Law on Freedom of Information was adopted in the second and final reading. Some experts believe that this law, in combination with some similar laws, adequately regulates the field, and that there is no need to adopt a special law, if we are guided by the principles it proclaims.