The issue at hand is a proposed law targeting online disinformation, which was submitted by the Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to parliament. This bill, titled “Combating the Spread of False News in Cyberspace,” aims to address the growing concern of how citizens are being targeted by false information on the internet. Despite the bill being Approval by the government on June 29 and its draft being sent to parliament on July 21, it has sparked worldwide criticism from both legal experts and media activists. The bill seeks to combat several negative aspects of social media: distortion of reality, discrediting of state institutions, creating public terror, weakening national cohesion, and disrupting social order. The original proposal was introduced by the judiciary, but it had to be reduced to 22 articles due to government scrutiny.
The bill’s primary goal is to prevent the spread of false information on the internet, which has become a potent tool for manipulating public perception and advancing wedge comments. Legal scholars and media activists have views that the bill contravenes Iran’s constitutional principles, particularly Article 24 on press freedom and Article 175 on media freedom of expression. Critics argue that the bill’s vague definition of “false content” could enable security and judicial authorities to dictate how information is presented. For example, individuals who conform to the bill’s criteria would face severe consequences, including long-term prison sentences during crises and increased punishments when content is shared by people with influence.
Critics also claim that legislation aimed at limiting dissent by identifying “false news” could empower rubber stamping. This means that even those expressing opinions under the guise of “false news” could be subject to the bill’s penalties. Media activists from within government seeks comments wrote, “If we were going to restrict public space like this in the name of fighting fake news, then what’s the difference between Pezeshkian and the previous government?” This suggests that the timing of the bill, which the Iranian government claims to be expanding internet freedom and strengthening civil society engagement, has led to strategic misalignment with its purpose.
Oppressed by this law, some middlemen who mediate disinformation would face严重的 penalties, whereas those expressing their opinions would receive harsher repercussions. This aligns with recent trends among vulnerable communities in Iran and draws parallels with tactics used by groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law could also fragment the internet, making it harder for polarized groups to communicate and forthose seeking moderate views to express their voices.
Among the more moderate lawmakers, some drew a flimsy stance on the bill. They emphasize that this measure is not a solution to the broader problem of misinformation but rather a precautionary measure that would be more effective solely in crisis conditions. This reflects the Iranian government’s preference for minimizing disruption at the expense of its public trust. However, some conservatives argue that a law explicitly targeting influencers for spreading false news could still hold significant value, as it might encourage more moderation online.