Journalists vs. Ministry of Culture: Questions Presented

The Astana Interdistrict Civil Court will hear a collective lawsuit filed by journalists against the Ministry of Culture and Information of Kazakhstan. The lawsuit challenges the Ministry's new order, which limits accredited journalists from disseminating information outside where they are accredited, Orda.kz reports.

Experts' Questions

Following the first court hearing, which took place on October 31, the International Foundation for the Protection of Freedom of Speech "Adil Soz" presented its expert assessment of the lawsuit's main points. 

In it, journalists state that the order violates the Constitution, establishes illogical restrictions, and contradicts the right to freedom of information dissemination. The Ministry, justifying the order with "information security," creates conditions for the privileges of unaccredited media and social networks. 

The new regulations also pose financial risks for government agencies, requiring costs for monitoring publications.

 1. Information security

The Ministry of Culture and Information's representatives claim that the restriction is related to “information security” and oversight of the original source. However, this restriction does not apply to social networks and other unaccredited resources, which calls into question the logic of the approach.

2. Contradictory to The Law

The law views the accreditation of journalists as a right, not an obligation. However, the new order effectively obliges journalists to obtain accreditation for each media outlet where they intend to publish material, which contradicts fundamental legal provisions.

According to Article 20 of the Constitution, restrictions on disseminating information may be introduced only at the legislative level. The Ministry of Culture and Information violates this requirement by introducing restrictions in a by-law.

4. Unreasonable Protection of Copyright

The Ministry claims that dissemination of information without accreditation affects copyright. Yet, according to the law, information about events is not an object of copyright, which calls into question the legality of such protection.

5. Vagueness and Lack of Accountability

The Ministry says the order's clarifications are advisory and not binding. Uncertainty for journalists, therefore, arises along with the possibility of conflicting court decisions.

6. Financial and Administrative Costs

Compliance with the new requirements obliges government agencies to monitor the publications of accredited journalists, which may lead to significant costs for monitoring and verification.

7. Ban Cannot be Implemented

With information spreading quickly on the Internet, it is becoming almost impossible to prove a violation of the new regulations, as a journalist can always claim that he received the information from another source.

8. Violations During Adoption

Contrary to constitutional requirements, the order came into force before its official publication. The Ministry of Justice does not see a problem with this, although it violates the Constitution.

From The Inside

In court, representatives of the Ministry of Culture and Information and the Ministry of Justice declined to recognize what was actually a restriction.

This concerns the wording in paragraph 11 of the regulations adopted by the MCI. It states that a journalist who has received accreditation may publish the information received only in the media on whose behalf the corresponding application for accreditation was submitted.

In other words, this information should not be published anywhere except in the media where the journalist is accredited. 

Moreover, a journalist who violates this rule twice risks losing accreditation. They will not be allowed into any state bodies or be able to receive information or carry out their professional activities. This is already a direct violation of the Constitution and The Law on Media. 

In addition, MCI representatives repeated several times that the restriction on information publication applies only to the media. It does not extend to social networks, blogs, and other resources classified by law as Internet platforms. 

A blogger who is not a professional journalist or a media employee running anonymous channels and blogs may find themselves in a privileged position. They can disseminate information as and where it is convenient for them.

Gaining views and attention, they will be faster and will not have to worry about losing their accreditation. 

The logical conclusion is that with these regulations, the relevant department is creating conditions for the deprofessionalization of Kazakhstani journalism, inviting hype hunters who do not burden themselves with checking and analyzing information.

The debates, scheduled for November 4 in the afternoon, should show if this is true and what arguments will be brought forward.

Original Author: Anastasia Prilepskaya