According to Roya News, a Jordanian news outlet, reported some of the details of the new cyber-crime law:

The revisions made by the Senate to Articles 15, 16, and 17 were endorsed.

Within these three articles, the prescribed penalties include imprisonment, fines, or a combination of both. Notably, the fine stipulated in Article 16 has been decreased.

Article 15 now reads as follows:

(A) Individuals intentionally propagating false news will face a minimum of three months’ imprisonment, a fine ranging from JD 5,000 to JD 20,000, or both penalties.

(B) Offenses outlined in Paragraph (A) will be subject to prosecution by the Public Prosecution, eliminating the necessity of filing a complaint or asserting a personal claim, especially if the false news concerns a state authority, official entity, or public administration.

Furthermore, the Lower House of Parliament has revised the fines associated with Article 16. This article pertains to actions causing “reputation damage” online and results in imprisonment for no less than three months, or a fine ranging from JD 5,000 to JD 20,000, or both penalties.

Amidst these changes, Article 17 has also been ratified. Following its modification, this article now dictates that intentional utilization of the internet to disseminate content aiming to incite conflict or undermine “national unity” will incur a sentence of 1-3 years’ imprisonment, a fine ranging from JD 5,000 to JD 20,000, or both penalties.

A week later the Associated Press noted that some of these infractions include speech comments “promoting, instigating, aiding, or inciting immorality,” demonstrating ”contempt for religion” or “undermining national unity.” It further chastises individuals who post names or pictures of police officers online, plus outlawing particular methods of maintaining online anonymity.

The AP added: ‘A coalition of 14 human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, has called the law “draconian.” The groups say “vague provisions open the door for Jordan’s executive branch to punish individuals for exercising their right to freedom of expression, forcing the judges to convict citizens in most cases.”’

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

[25] How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove? [26] Do ye imagine to reprove words, and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind? 

Job 6:25-26

I mention this just to note that more and more nations, big and small, continue to crackdown on what people can say. Overall, our time on the internet is dwindling.

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10). 

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.