A proposed information law in Lebanon, already approved by joint parliamentary committees in July, has raised concerns among journalists and press freedom advocates over provisions that would punish the “dissemination of false or harmful information” with up to three years in prison and the possibility of forced labor, according to Lebanese media reports.
Critics of the law told L’Orient-Le Jour that a broad interpretation of Article 104 would open the possibility for Lebanon’s press freedom to be undermined.
“We need a modern law, but this text is confusing,” a source close to the journalists’ union told the site, describing the article as “a step backward” given that the country has already amended an existing media law in 1994 that ensures journalists cannot receive prison sentences, only fines, for their work.
In a statement, the Lebanese journalists’ union said it “rejects the bill, as it lacks a national vision for media and does not protect media professionals.”
Maharat, an NGO that advocates for freedom of expression, said in a statement that “the amendment to Article 104 is very concerning because it adds a clause to the provisions on incitement to hatred related to the dissemination of false or misleading news.
“This wording reopens the door to criminal prosecution, contradicting the spirit of reform based on limiting liability to the civil sphere, except in cases of serious and direct incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between the core of the law – which abolishes criminal penalties – and the new amendment to Article 104, which should be deleted or reworded.”
Law limits positions Palestinians in Lebanon can have
Dr. Omar Nashabe, a Lebanese criminal justice scholar, human rights researcher, and analyst, wrote in the Al Akhbar newspaper that the issue of the law would be defining what “harmful” news constitutes.
“What is the dividing line between journalistic error, incomplete information, disputed accounts, and deliberate criminal fabrication? And who determines the degree of harm required for a crime to be established?” he wrote.
“The lack of precise definitions for these terms opens a wide field for interpretation. The phrase ‘fake news’ could be used against a journalist who relied on an official source that later proved inaccurate, or who published leaked documents whose authenticity was challenged by the authorities, or who presented a narrative that contradicted the government’s version.
"Therefore, the danger of this article lies not only in the penalty itself, but also in its potential for selective application against investigative and opposition journalism.”
Notably, Nashabe warned that Article 63 of the law could also be used to discriminate against Palestinian refugees living in the country by stipulating that the manager responsible for a professional media site must be Lebanese and residing in Lebanon.
He argued such a clause prevents Palestinians without citizenship from assuming the role of managing editor of a website, even if it doesn’t restrict them from journalism entirely.
“The result is that Palestinians working in the media are confined to a specific professional framework: they can write, work, and produce content, but they cannot reach the position of managing editor, no matter their experience or competence,” he claimed.