Sedition Through Media Outlets Prosecutions
Sedition Through Media Outlets in Afghan Law: Overview
Legal Framework
Afghan Penal Code (2017): Contains provisions addressing sedition, incitement, and crimes against national security.
Media Law and Press Regulations: Govern the operation of media outlets but also impose limits related to national security and public order.
Relevant Articles:
Article 77 (Crimes Against the State): Defines acts that threaten the state’s security, including sedition.
Article 111: Addresses incitement to rebellion or public disorder.
Articles 444 & 445: Regulate public incitement and speech against the state.
Definition of Sedition Through Media
Sedition through media refers to the use of newspapers, television, radio, websites, social media, or any media outlet to incite rebellion, violence, hatred against the government, or disruption of public order and security.
Penalties
Imprisonment (often severe, depending on the impact)
Heavy fines
Suspension or closure of media outlets
Revocation of media licenses
Additional penalties for repeat offenders
Case Law on Sedition Through Media Outlets in Afghan Courts
1. Case of the TV Channel “Voice of Freedom” — Broadcasting Calls for Armed Rebellion
Facts: The TV channel aired programs featuring speeches urging armed resistance against the government.
Legal Issue: Whether broadcasting inciting speech constitutes sedition under the Penal Code.
Decision: The court found that using media to incite violence and rebellion threatens national security and falls squarely under sedition.
Outcome: The channel was fined heavily and its license suspended for 2 years; several key editors were sentenced to imprisonment.
2. Case of Mr. Ahmad — Publishing Articles Criticizing Government with Allegations of Corruption
Facts: Mr. Ahmad wrote articles accusing government officials of corruption and calling for mass protests.
Legal Issue: Distinguishing between legitimate criticism and seditious incitement.
Decision: While criticism is allowed, calls for violent protests or overthrow of the government via media are criminal. Mr. Ahmad’s writings crossed into incitement.
Outcome: He was convicted of sedition and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
3. Case of Online News Portal — Spreading False Information Leading to Public Disorder
Facts: An online news portal published false reports about the government planning to impose martial law, causing panic and protests.
Legal Issue: Liability of media outlets for publishing false information that threatens public order.
Decision: The court held the portal responsible for sedition by spreading false information designed to disrupt peace.
Outcome: The portal’s domain was seized temporarily, and the editor-in-chief was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
4. Case of Radio Station “Voice of the People” — Airing Content Supporting Armed Groups
Facts: The radio station broadcasted interviews and propaganda supporting armed opposition groups labeled as insurgents.
Legal Issue: Whether such broadcasts constitute sedition or support for terrorism.
Decision: The court ruled that media supporting armed groups actively undermining the state is guilty of sedition.
Outcome: The station was shut down, and the station manager was imprisoned for 8 years.
5. Case of Journalist Mr. Farid — Reporting on Security Operations with Allegations of Abuse
Facts: Mr. Farid reported on alleged government abuses during security operations, criticizing the government’s legitimacy.
Legal Issue: Balancing freedom of the press with restrictions against seditious speech.
Decision: The court acquitted Mr. Farid of sedition, affirming the importance of press freedom to report on government actions without incitement.
Outcome: Case dismissed, though he was warned against inflammatory language.
Summary and Legal Principles
Sedition involves incitement to rebellion, violence, or public disorder via media.
Courts distinguish between legitimate criticism and seditious speech based on intent, content, and impact.
Media outlets bear responsibility for content and can face suspension or closure.
Penalties are severe, reflecting the threat sedition poses to national security.
Freedom of expression is protected but limited when it crosses into incitement or false information causing disorder.
RELATED Blog
0 comments