Tweet
LACK OF RESPECT
by Valeriy Markaryan and Artsrun Kostandyan
Azg
March 12 2008
Armenia
It has been forgotten that in any case we live in a democratic country
with supremacy of law. This happened due to the political tension
of the recent months turning into obvious hysteria, as well as due
to the state of emergency imposed because of well-known events. At
least this is written in the Constitution which is considered the
supreme law of a state.
Some people will smile when the issue of supremacy of law is
mentioned. We believe that this lack of trust has grounds, but
nevertheless the present serious political crisis should not be used
for political revenge on the part of the authorities, it should be
used for strengthening supremacy of law in practice.
Making laws more specific and specific application of laws can be
both the most efficient way out of the political crisis and the only
way for the country to take the democratic route.
It is known that the state of emergency means temporary restrictions
for society in the sphere of freedom of speech and other political
freedoms. However, these restrictions should strictly comply with
laws. [Passage omitted: reiteration]
It is known that a number of media outlets have refused to work under
the state of emergency conditions as a sign of protest. It is known
that the authorities did not officially stop the activity of any
media outlet and introduced some restrictions only.
It is also known that websites of some media outlets cannot be
accessed. Why? Either the activity of these websites stopped on the
orders of managers of these media outlets or the authorities.
We have not seen any reports saying that the activity of websites
stopped by the media outlets themselves. We also did not hear that
this was done by the authorities. [Passage omitted on assumptions
about the reasons of this situation]
Many people these days lost the opportunity to access at least one
international website [youtube.com]. An Armenian media outlet has
posted numerous reports on this website; there are also reports
there posted by individuals. Now this website is inaccessible for
the audience from Armenia.
Why? What is more interesting - which law or decree was used as the
basis for stopping access to the website?
It is clear that this was not the management of the website who did
it. They might not even known Armenia's location on a map.
It is also clear that this was done with the help of some Armenian
internet providers.
It is only unclear what are the legal basis for such a restriction.
If a foreign website in fact violates legal restrictions during the
state of emergency, instead of illegal actions it would have been more
lawful to apply to the authorities of a corresponding country with a
request to suspend the activity of the website. One can act the other
way round as well - inform a visitor about the restrictions and the
grounds of this decision when he/she visits an undesirable website.
We believe that Armenia should not resemble countries where such
illegal restrictions in the internet become a norm.
Behaviour of some internet providers is surprising. If these
restrictions were imposed just by one phone call from the above, then
one can only be upset for the existence of such companies. If this
has been done in line with the law, is a report about this made public?
Let's hope that this alarm will focus the attention of the authorities
on this disgraceful phenomenon and will help to quickly regulate it.
When our edition was being sent to the printing house, youtube.com
website was already accessible. Fortunately.
by Valeriy Markaryan and Artsrun Kostandyan
Azg
March 12 2008
Armenia
It has been forgotten that in any case we live in a democratic country
with supremacy of law. This happened due to the political tension
of the recent months turning into obvious hysteria, as well as due
to the state of emergency imposed because of well-known events. At
least this is written in the Constitution which is considered the
supreme law of a state.
Some people will smile when the issue of supremacy of law is
mentioned. We believe that this lack of trust has grounds, but
nevertheless the present serious political crisis should not be used
for political revenge on the part of the authorities, it should be
used for strengthening supremacy of law in practice.
Making laws more specific and specific application of laws can be
both the most efficient way out of the political crisis and the only
way for the country to take the democratic route.
It is known that the state of emergency means temporary restrictions
for society in the sphere of freedom of speech and other political
freedoms. However, these restrictions should strictly comply with
laws. [Passage omitted: reiteration]
It is known that a number of media outlets have refused to work under
the state of emergency conditions as a sign of protest. It is known
that the authorities did not officially stop the activity of any
media outlet and introduced some restrictions only.
It is also known that websites of some media outlets cannot be
accessed. Why? Either the activity of these websites stopped on the
orders of managers of these media outlets or the authorities.
We have not seen any reports saying that the activity of websites
stopped by the media outlets themselves. We also did not hear that
this was done by the authorities. [Passage omitted on assumptions
about the reasons of this situation]
Many people these days lost the opportunity to access at least one
international website [youtube.com]. An Armenian media outlet has
posted numerous reports on this website; there are also reports
there posted by individuals. Now this website is inaccessible for
the audience from Armenia.
Why? What is more interesting - which law or decree was used as the
basis for stopping access to the website?
It is clear that this was not the management of the website who did
it. They might not even known Armenia's location on a map.
It is also clear that this was done with the help of some Armenian
internet providers.
It is only unclear what are the legal basis for such a restriction.
If a foreign website in fact violates legal restrictions during the
state of emergency, instead of illegal actions it would have been more
lawful to apply to the authorities of a corresponding country with a
request to suspend the activity of the website. One can act the other
way round as well - inform a visitor about the restrictions and the
grounds of this decision when he/she visits an undesirable website.
We believe that Armenia should not resemble countries where such
illegal restrictions in the internet become a norm.
Behaviour of some internet providers is surprising. If these
restrictions were imposed just by one phone call from the above, then
one can only be upset for the existence of such companies. If this
has been done in line with the law, is a report about this made public?
Let's hope that this alarm will focus the attention of the authorities
on this disgraceful phenomenon and will help to quickly regulate it.
When our edition was being sent to the printing house, youtube.com
website was already accessible. Fortunately.