Last updated:

January 28, 2025

Kambiz Norouzi: This plan is legally flawed / Ali Kalaii

“Review of the 10 to 15-year prison plan for “critical comments” by the parliament”

In conversation with Kambeez Noroozi, former vice president of the Tehran Journalists’ Guild Association.

According to Kambeez Noroozi, representatives have understood one thing correctly: that the virtual space and social networks provide a situation for the circulation of information that is not controllable or containable; however, they are trying to expand their control in the virtual space. It seems that this effort for more control has led to the drafting of a plan in the parliament titled “Punishments and Deterrent Measures to Prevent Non-Expert Opinions by Individuals”; a plan that would result in punishment for expressing opinions on any subject where “official opinions are needed and have not yet been declared”. The punishment for the individual expressing their opinion, if it does not fall under the category of “corruption on earth” (which will be examined under another article), is “third degree punishment (ten to fifteen years of imprisonment), monetary punishment equivalent to twice the damages inflicted on the physical integrity of individuals or public and private properties, and five to ten years of deprivation of social rights and prohibition from the

This plan had the monthly magazine of “Peace Line” in mind, so that with Kambeez Norouzi, a lawyer and former vice president of the Tehran Journalists’ Guild, could sit down for a conversation and inquire about this plan, what it means for freedom of speech and journalism in the country, and the legal intricacies involved. Mr. Norouzi also spoke about the goal of considering harsh punishments in this plan for peace, saying: “The goal is to be stricter and create fear for those who fall under this law, so they cannot easily speak. It’s that simple!”

You can read the detailed conversation of the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh” with Kambeez Norouzi, a lawyer and former vice president of the Tehran Journalists’ Guild, below.

 

Recently, a plan has been drafted in the Islamic Consultative Assembly known as “Punishment for Non-Expert Opinions”. This is happening while we previously had laws that criminalized freedom of expression, such as “disturbing public minds” or “spreading lies”. If such a plan is approved, to what extent will the defense of the accused and the work of lawyers and judges in convicting them become more difficult?

This plan is legally flawed and its authors either did not have enough legal knowledge or were not familiar with the virtual space. Of course, it is possible that both are true. The essence of this plan is that if any of these famous individuals speak before the official authorities and say something that is contrary to the truth and is a lie, they will be punished. Legally speaking, there is no concept or criterion in this matter. This, of course, does not make the defense any easier. Because the issue here is that the statement made is contrary to the truth. However, there are details such as the possibility of disrupting the public space by these statements and the like, which make the defense difficult. The issue is that if this plan is approved, it will tie the hands and feet of famous individuals in expressing their opinions. Naturally, it also makes the defense more difficult, because for example, the criterion of fame is not exactly clear. For example, Ali Dayi is a famous person

Another question that arises is where will this meter and standard (expert/non-expert opinion) come from?

Some things cannot have a standard or measure; for example, the very word “fame”. The head of parliament has fame. A representative of a small county also has fame. But this fame is within their own province. No standard can be set for this. It can be said that if the word “fame” is used absolutely, it is not measurable. For example, if you are not interested in sports, you do not know the names of football players. But someone else is interested in football and follows its news and knows the names of most football teams. For this reason, for the word “fame” – when it is mentioned absolutely – no standard or measure can be set.

Does this mean that ultimately the judge is the decision maker?

Naturally, it is the judge’s duty to determine whether this individual is among the famous individuals mentioned in this plan or not. In fact, the comparison of circumstances is completely in the hands of the judge. But there is a criterion. The discussion of lies or false news has a criterion. For example, it is said that an incident has occurred in a certain place. Here, either the incident has happened or not. The criterion is clear and the court refers to it in this case. But in other cases, only the judge’s judgment will be the criteria.

According to this plan, individuals who are known as celebrities and have a large number of followers on social networks are not allowed to express any opinion, and if their opinion does not match the official narrative – even if it is correct – it will be considered a “third-degree punishment”. Do you think such a law would not contradict citizenship rights and even the constitution?

Basically, this plan is in conflict with the principles of freedom of expression and our country’s constitution. This plan restricts freedom of expression and this restriction is not legitimate. People have the right to express their opinions, even if what they say is considered criminal – for example, if it constitutes defamation or spreading false news, or if classified documents are disclosed – they will be prosecuted. Currently, there are laws related to these matters. However, the generality and overall nature of this plan, contrary to the constitution, restricts the space of freedom of expression.

Let me mention another point here. In this plan, reference has been made to the opinions of official authorities before expressing opinions. The issue here is that official authorities do not always speak accurately and completely. Sometimes it is possible for these authorities to provide incomplete or even incorrect information. For example, in the field of economy, official authorities sometimes provide statistics that economic experts do not accept with their own calculations. This and similar issues practically make the implementation of this law (if approved) face difficulties. I really do not know what the parliament truly intends to do with this plan.

In Article 512 of the Fifth Book of Islamic Penal Code, in the section on punishments, despite the discussion of war and massacre, only one to five years of imprisonment is considered. While in the proposed plan – which is supposed to be added as a repeated article to Article 512 – it is stated that if it does not fall under the category of “corruption on earth” as mentioned in Article 286, a third degree punishment, meaning ten to fifteen years of imprisonment, will be imposed. In your opinion, what is the reason for this level of punishment in this proposed plan?

Article 512 states that “anyone who incites or provokes people to war and massacre against each other with the intention of disrupting the security of the country, regardless of whether it leads to murder and looting or not, shall be sentenced to one to five years in prison.” This law, which has been proposed, does not necessarily have a direct connection to Article 512 itself. The goal is to impose stricter measures and create fear for individuals who fall under this article, making it difficult for them to speak freely.

In this plan, representatives have stated that expressing the opinions of individuals who hold specific job positions can effectively incite and provoke different segments of society to create chaos, disturbance, and insecurity. From a philosophical perspective, how is it possible for expressing opinions to lead to insecurity in society?

In addition to what you said, essentially in the realm of belief and opinion, there is nothing that can be considered as a lie. A lie only applies to news, which can be true or false. In regards to other matters such as interpretation, analysis, and the like, they cannot be considered as lies. In logic, it is also said that news can be both true and false. Something that can be either true or false is news.

At the beginning of the conversation, I mentioned that this plan has not paid attention to legal standards and issues like that. I doubt that such a plan, if approved, will be executable. I also have serious doubts that the parliament would approve these phrases in such an unprofessional manner.

In your opinion, why does the parliament focus on such issues as criminalizing photography or expressing non-expert opinions when it should be addressing more important matters such as the budget?

Of course, this plan is a collective effort of representatives and has not yet been discussed in the open session of the parliament. However, it seems that the representatives have understood something about the motivation behind the plan. That is, social media and networks provide a situation for the circulation of information that is not controllable or manageable. Due to the severe weakness of the media in the country, social networks and virtual space have played an important role in the circulation of information in Iran. On the other hand, just as it is not possible to control newspapers, radio, and television, it is also not possible to control this space. Representatives have become aware of this aspect of the issue and their intention is to extend this control to the virtual space as well. However, they do not realize that firstly, for various reasons, such control over the virtual space is practically impossible. Secondly, the system of information circulation is such that it naturally leads people to use these facilities.

What do you think will happen to journalism in Iran, which has been under pressure all these years, with these kinds of plans?

Now, the virtual space is a source of news for both people and media. Many news are taken from the virtual space and the internet. The circulation of information also happens very quickly in this space. If something happens in a city in the United States, minutes later the whole world will know about it. In this situation, creating restrictions for social networks naturally poses a problem for official and professional media to access an important source of news, and it will definitely not have a good effect.

Thank you for the time you have given us in the monthly magazine of the Peace Line.

Created By: Ali Kalaei
February 20, 2023

Tags

Ali Kala'i Celebrity Council Criminalization Expert opinion Expressing opinion Freedom of speech Islamic Consultative Assembly Islamic Penal Law Kambiz Noroozi Monthly Peace Line Magazine Opinion peace line Peace Line 142 Freedom of speech Opinion Expressing opinion پیمان صلح پیمان صلح ۱۴۲ Criminalization peace line Peace Line 142 Celebrity Ali Kala'i Islamic Penal Law Kambiz Noroozi ماهنامه خط صلح ماهنامه خط صلح ماهنامه خط صلح Council Islamic Consultative Assembly Expert opinion