jordan pulse -

Lawyer Muhammad Al-Subaihi

In discussing the role of the Public Prosecution in the wise use of the Cybercrime Law, we write.

First of all, this law has become a reality of legislation that completes the constitutional stages, and for those who do not know it is part of the legislative system of the countries of the Arab region to confront what has been called electronic media chaos. Those who work outside the legal territorial jurisdiction of the countries of the region.

Accordingly, the forces of civil society that opposed (the draft law) must turn the page and move to the stage of good dealing with the new law and spreading a legal and ethical culture in accessing the means of communication in order to preserve freedom of thought and expression intact and continuous and push the intruders out of it.

I do not miss here the speech of His Majesty the King at the National Center for Human Rights, and in particular his majesty's saying ((Combating cybercrime should not be at the expense of the right of Jordanians to express their opinion or criticize public policies)).

This refers to an issue of the wise use of the law, and the Public Prosecution apparatus, represented by its presidency and the three public prosecutors, is primarily relied upon in directing the Public Prosecution towards the rational use of the provisions of the law and the precise distinction between the bad faith of the defendant, which is what is called criminal intent, and those with good intentions who do not help them. Their culture or experience in using their right to expression in a way that does not harm others and infringes on their freedoms and personal lives.

Public prosecutors and jurists must prevent the provisions of the law from turning into a trap by some slanderers to entrap people under penalty of penalties, squabble with cases, and flood the prosecution and courts with complaints, which will disturb the path of democratic political reform.

I believe that controlling lawlessness on social media has become a necessity, but within the limits of good faith and taking into account the society's right to criticism, dialogue and expression of opinion, not for the law to become a means to immunize state institutions and officials against criticism and questioning.