A few days before the start of the twelve-day war, the issue of internet classification caused some political and civil activists to criticize the decision, referring to the president’s promise to remove filtering. Such restrictions on citizens’ rights are being imposed while in the country’s political-judicial structure, various rules and laws have been formulated and promulgated, the common aspect of all of them being the explanation and identification of citizens’ rights, including the Charter of Citizens’ Rights, the Law on Respect for Legitimate Freedoms, the Law on Safeguarding Citizens’ Rights, the Judicial Security Document, and most importantly, the Constitution.

Public law theorists, based on the foundations of human rights and citizenship, believe that according to accepted international standards, people from all social classes and positions, regardless of gender, race, religion or social status, have equal rights. Therefore, human rights standards are based on the principle that in no society are citizens classified and all people are considered “first-class citizens” and have equal rights. However, in practice, and in defining the concept of citizenship in Iran, it cannot be claimed that all people have full access to all the privileges of a citizen. Here, the issue of “citizen classification” arises, a concept that indicates the gap between theory and reality. Supporters of this theory believe that unlike human rights, which are absolute, citizenship rights are subject to the principle of relativity and are in fact “relative”. This perspective is the beginning of a serious challenge that takes the form of “citizen classification”. In this framework, some argue that full enjoyment of citizenship rights is contingent upon “

But this perspective is faced with several fundamental questions: Do critics and protesters of government policies, even if their loyalty to the system is preserved, fit into the definition of a good citizen? Is the criterion of loyalty to the government relative or absolute? And more importantly, by which institution or authority is this level of loyalty defined and determined? If the constitution is accepted as a civil covenant between citizens and the government, is there not a more valid criterion or standard for measuring citizens’ loyalty to the government? If citizens protest against their legal rights, based on regulations that the government has approved in the form of citizenship rights, does this indicate any doubt in their loyalty to the system?

Classification of citizens in virtual space and the internet.

The discussion of classifying citizens in the realm of citizenship rights has taken on new dimensions in the digital age and virtual space. Restrictions imposed on internet access, content censorship, filtering, and control of online activities, effectively lead to the unofficial classification of people. The right to free access to information, explicitly mentioned in the law on publication and free access to information, is one of the most important indicators of enjoying citizenship rights in the contemporary world, and being deprived of it can be a sign of serious limitations in the full implementation of citizenship rights. In this framework, citizens who are under severe political, social, or ideological control and internet restrictions, are practically placed in lower classes in terms of enjoying their rights. This issue poses a serious challenge to the principles of equality and legal justice, which are emphasized in legal texts and human rights.

Challenges and consequences of citizen classification.

Classifying citizens based on loyalty or level of compliance with the government not only leads to a violation of principles of social justice and equality, but also creates a platform for legal, social, and political inequalities that can result in increased public dissatisfaction and mistrust. This situation, especially in the areas of communication rights and access to information, can cause social and political divisions and undermine the legitimate functions of government.

Criticism and discussion about the implementation of filtering and creating barriers to people’s access to the internet and social networks has been raised repeatedly and in various ways by lawyers, communication experts, civil activists, and media professionals. However, what has been implemented during the twelve-day war is different. In a situation where access to news about the war and government actions is the natural right of the people, restricting access to the virtual space is a clear sign of oppression, which has added to the psychological and emotional pressure on the people.

The rights and privileges that a human being should benefit from based on their nature and human dignity are defined in fundamental rights, citizenship rights, human rights, etc. In addition, in situations such as the current conditions in Iran, the need to pay attention to these rights and ensure the implementation of human rights is felt more than ever before. Without a doubt, the conditions of war and the necessity of taking actions to protect the borders of the country and prevent enemy attacks are a justifiable reason for certain specific measures that may be perceived as limiting access to the internet. However, it is also necessary to pay attention to the mental and psychological well-being of the people, which is a necessary and essential action. In support of this claim, one can refer to the definition and examples of non-military defense. Non-military defense does not require military equipment and is carried out with the aim of protecting the lives of people, ensuring their safety and health, and safeguarding the territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

Internet Disorders: Security or Governance?

Internet disruptions or interruptions, including the filtering of WhatsApp, were implemented during the early days of the war and continued until the end of the war. The government spokesperson referred to it as a measure to protect the lives of people and prevent security threats, and emphasized that this communication disruption was temporary and aimed at returning to normalcy. Some analysts believe that these restrictions may open the way for the transfer of narratives from the people to the outside and improve the image of foreign media. The government also announced that after the end of the crisis, the internet will return to normal, but the quality of connection and speed will remain low.

The legal, social, and economic consequences of restricting the internet.

Economic and business consequences.

The trade association for online businesses reported more than $100 million in losses every hour due to disruptions. During this period, over 400,000 small and medium-sized businesses were forced to shut down. The deputy minister of communications also mentioned the thousands of businesses and millions of internet users who were affected. Digital businesses saw a decrease in income of 70-80% and transactions were severely impacted. This situation prompted the government to provide supportive facilities, but those in the industry criticized it for being opaque and insufficiently evaluated.

Social and psychological consequences.

Disruptions in services such as online taxi applications and GPS have caused confusion, lack of trust, and experiences of psychological insecurity. Psychiatrists believe that these repeated failures disrupt the process of societal psychological reconstruction.

Digital Rights and Sovereignty.

The Computer Society Organization emphasized that free and stable access to the international internet is a fundamental right of citizenship and the foundation of the digital economy. They warned that violating this right will not only have economic consequences, but also lead to a decrease in public trust, weaken national unity, and confuse users.

Despite the fact that the government justified the cuts and restrictions with the aim of preserving security and preventing enemy abuse, it had consequences in various areas for the citizens, including:

Public Access Right: Frequent and prolonged internet disruptions violate citizens’ right to access information and services.

Economic consequences: Businesses and the digital economy suffered heavy financial blows and the government provided sufficient facilities to compensate for these losses, contracts for the affected citizens…

Social trust: Restricting the internet leads to distrust, creates distance between people and government, and reduces social capital.

Data Security: The use of spy filters increases the risk of intrusion and theft of user data.