Cybersecurity or Silencing? The Politicization of Jordan’s Cybercrime Law No. 17 of 2023

Abstract

The Jordanian Cybercrime Law No. 17 of 2013 has been controversial largely because of its vague wording—most notably, articles related to "false news" and other online content that is said to harm national unity or propagate depravity. These ambiguities have alarmed stakeholders as to what it could mean for free speech and the ability of journalists or activists to work unfettered within digital confines. Jordanian law to combat misinformation — fake news that undermines national unity and sparks discord, which has generated much controversy about human rights and freedom of expression. Amnesty International criticized the law as "draconian", which warned against its inclusive definitions and how individuals could be prosecuted even if nobody files a formal complaint. The legislation has been condemned by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which said it threatens the security of Jordan's digital infrastructure and tarnishes Amman's record as a moderate, reform-conscious state. Local law scholars also question whether the rule will be a political weapon and won't achieve all of what it intends. The paper shows how the 2023 law has politicized fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, digital anonymity, and civic engagement. Finally, it underlines how the tension between state security narratives and international human rights obligations is reflected.