The inclusion of the draft Media Law on the agenda of the Lebanese Parliament's plenary session on 16 July sparked extensive public debate, accompanied by opposing positions and conflicting claims about both the substance of the draft and its legislative process. Some narratives argued that the proposal had been hastily prepared without a national vision, that it permits the imprisonment of journalists, fails to protect media professionals, and excludes media institutions from the new governance framework. Others claimed that it imposes restrictions on traditional media while leaving digital news websites and online platforms entirely outside any regulatory framework.

 

Public debate on legislation of such significance is both necessary and legitimate. Likewise, reviewing and improving the draft is an essential part of the legislative process. However, such debate should be grounded in the actual provisions of the proposal and distinguish between genuine shortcomings that require amendment and conclusions that are not supported by the text or that overlook the core reforms it introduces.

 

The draft was not prepared over a matter of weeks or months. Rather, it is the outcome of a legislative process spanning sixteen years, involving members of Parliament, legal experts, civil society organizations, and professional associations. It underwent successive reviews by the Parliamentary Committee on Media and Communications, the Administration and Justice Committee and its subcommittee, and the Joint Parliamentary Committees. The final stages also included participatory discussions involving Maharat Foundation, the Union of Journalists in Lebanon, legal experts—particularly former MP Ghassan Moukheiber, who had submitted a draft law proposal in 2010—as well as the Press Editors Syndicate and the Press Syndicate, at the invitation of the subcommittee emanating from the Administration and Justice Committee.

 

 

A Reform Vision for the Media, Not a Law Based on Professional Privileges 

The draft is not limited to regulating media institutions as commercial entities, nor does it seek to organize the journalism profession or membership in professional associations. Instead, it is based on a broader set of principles that include protecting freedom of expression, safeguarding media pluralism, ensuring transparency of media ownership and funding, strengthening the independence of the National Media Council, protecting journalists and their sources, and replacing criminal penalties in publication-related cases with civil liability.

 

The proposal adopts an approach that protects the act of expression itself, rather than only the professional status of the person exercising it. Accordingly, protection from criminal sanctions in publication-related cases is not confined to members of journalists' associations or employees of media organizations. It extends to anyone exercising their right to freedom of expression, whether they are journalists, researchers, bloggers, or ordinary citizens.

 

The organization of the journalism profession—including conditions for professional membership and the social and economic rights of media workers—is a separate reform process requiring dedicated legislation. The fact that these issues are not addressed in detail in the draft Media Law does not mean that it disregards professional rights. On the contrary, the proposal guarantees the freedom to establish and join journalists' associations and unions, affirms the right of media workers to independent and freely formed associations, and prohibits discrimination or retaliatory measures based on associations activity.

 

In this context, the shift from a system of exclusive professional privileges to one based on freedom of association is not intended to undermine existing syndicates or diminish the role they can play. Rather, it seeks to reconcile that role with the principles of freedom of association, pluralism, and the right of individuals to choose their professional representation.

 

Does the Draft Law Allow Journalists to Be Imprisoned?

The claim that the draft Media Law fundamentally permits the imprisonment of journalists does not reflect the core reform introduced by the text. The proposal is built on a fundamental shift away from the criminalization of defamation, libel, slander, and other publication-related offences, replacing criminal liability with civil liability.

 

Under this approach, no public prosecution may be initiated against a journalist or any person exercising their right to freedom of expression, and they may not be subjected to pretrial detention or investigation by security agencies solely because of the content they have published. Instead, a person seeking compensation must bring a claim before a civil court and establish three cumulative elements:

 

- that a fault occurred in the publication or expression;

- that actual harm was suffered (for example, damage to reputation); and

- that a causal link exists between the fault and the harm.

 

The civil framework also guarantees due process and the right to appeal, while ensuring that journalists are no longer subject to a special court, such as the Publications Court, or to exceptional criminal procedures. Any damages awarded must be proportionate to the actual harm suffered and are subject to the principle of proportionality, preventing compensation from being used as a disguised financial penalty to silence the media. This represents a clear departure from the current legal framework, which allows criminal prosecutions, summonses by security agencies, and detention in cases involving expression and publication.

 

However, the amendment introduced by the Joint Parliamentary Committees to Article 104 raises legitimate concerns. The amendment added a provision concerning the dissemination of false news or misleading information to the article governing incitement to hatred. This wording reopens the door to criminalization in a manner that contradicts the reform's underlying philosophy of limiting liability to the civil sphere, except in cases involving serious and direct incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.

 

It is therefore important to distinguish between the core of the draft - which abolishes criminal penalties for publication-related offences - and the recent amendment to Article 104, which should be deleted or substantially revised to ensure that vague concepts such as "false news" or "misleading information" are not used as a basis for prosecuting journalists or other critics.

 

As for hate speech, it should remain, as provided in the draft law, limited to the most serious cases that satisfy the six-part threshold test set out in the Rabat Plan of Action: the context, the speaker, intent, the content and form of the expression, the extent of its dissemination, and the likelihood of resulting harm. Expression should not be criminalized merely because it is offensive, shocking, or inaccurate.

 

Protecting Journalists and Sources for the First Time Within a Comprehensive Framework

The proposal includes clear provisions protecting the freedom of journalistic work and the confidentiality of sources, which have been among the key demands advocated by journalists and human rights organizations for years.

 

Source protection is particularly important in investigations involving corruption, political, financial, and security authorities. Journalists cannot effectively perform their watchdog role if they risk being forced to reveal their sources or face legal action because of the information they receive.

 

Furthermore, transferring publication-related cases to the civil liability framework and abolishing pretrial detention and criminal procedures removes a significant part of the pressure currently faced by journalists, particularly summonses before security agencies and the use of criminal proceedings as a tool of intimidation.

 

Accordingly, it remains possible to debate whether the social protections available to media workers are sufficient or whether additional safeguards should be developed. However, it is inaccurate to conclude that the proposal fails to protect journalists, as it introduces, for the first time, a comprehensive framework safeguarding freedom of expression, source confidentiality, and the right to organize collectively. 

 

Why Should Not Every Social Media User Be Subject to a Media Licence?

One of the recurring criticisms of the proposal is that it regulates media institutions while failing, in contrast, to regulate all influencers, content creators, bloggers, podcasters, and social media platforms, thereby creating two markets subject to different standards. This concern has been raised in detail during public discussions around the law.

However, the law must distinguish between three different categories:

 

First, global social media platforms: these are intermediary technology companies that cannot be treated by a Lebanese media law as Lebanese media institutions, nor can they be subjected to a national licensing system similar to that applied to television and radio broadcasters.

 

Second, individuals exercising their right to freedom of expression online, including bloggers, influencers, and podcast creators. These individuals should not be subject to prior licensing simply because they have a large audience. Prior licensing requirements for individuals exercising their right to expression would contradict the principle of freedom of opinion and expression and could become a tool for excluding critical voices.

 

Third, organized digital media outlets that operate in a professional and institutional capacity and seek to obtain official media status. Under the proposal, these entities would be subject to a notification system,  rather than prior licensing. This system allows for the identification of the media outlet and those responsible for it, while requiring compliance with transparency rules regarding ownership and funding, without granting the executive authority the power to prevent its establishment or control its content.

 

This does not mean, however, that digital activity is left without legal accountability. Anyone who commits an act that causes harm to another person remains subject to the general rules of civil liability and to laws governing unlawful acts. The key distinction, however, lies between subsequent accountability for a specific harm and requiring prior authorization to exercise the right to freedom of expression.

 

Transparency Is Not a Restriction on Media Outlets, but a Public Right

Some criticisms of the law may overlap with legitimate concerns raised by media institutions regarding investment, competition, and economic sustainability. However, media outlets are not merely ordinary commercial activities; they directly influence the formation of public opinion and citizens’ political and social choices.

 

For this reason, transparency provisions regarding ownership and funding are not intended to interfere with the editorial independence of media institutions or weaken their ability to invest. Rather, they uphold the public’s right to know who owns a media outlet, who finances it, and who its ultimate beneficiaries are, enabling audiences to assess the information and positions they present in an informed manner.

 

These safeguards are particularly important in Lebanon, where research on media ownership has demonstrated widespread links between media institutions and political and economic actors and figures. Without disclosure of owners, ultimate beneficiaries, and sources of funding, it becomes difficult to assess the independence of a media outlet or understand the interests that may influence its content.

 

Previous versions of the proposal, including those issued by the Joint Parliamentary Committees, had set a 10% cap on individual ownership in audiovisual media institutions, with the aim of limiting monopolies and the concentration of media control. However, this threshold was removed during the Joint Committees’ discussions. Therefore, it is no longer accurate to refer to the 10% limit as an existing restriction in the version submitted to the plenary session.

 

The proposal also does not impose an absolute ban on foreign ownership. Rather, it permits investment and ownership subject to legal requirements. The legitimate debate therefore concerns how to strike a balance between encouraging investment and preventing media monopolization or the complete subordination of media outlets to opaque foreign or political interests.

 

The central question is not solely the nationality of the investor, but rather whether the law can ensure disclosure of the ultimate beneficiary, prevent hidden forms of control, require transparency regarding funding sources, and safeguard the plurality of the media landscape.

 

The Media Council: Independent Regulation, Not Content Control

The proposal establishes an independent Media Council as an alternative to the current model, which is based on limited powers and bodies subject to political quotas or executive authority. Its primary role is to regulate the sector, monitor compliance with transparency rules on ownership and funding, safeguard media pluralism, and oversee professional and institutional obligations—not to prosecute journalists or replace the judiciary.

 

The existence of an independent regulatory body has become a necessity given the current institutional gap. The National Council for Audio-visual Media lacks effective independence and meaningful powers, and there is no authority currently capable of addressing issues related to ownership, media concentration, transparency, and institutional accountability.

 

The claim that the Council’s composition does not include representation from the media sector also requires clarification. The appointment mechanism does include media representation, alongside members with judicial, academic, technical (engineering), and professional backgrounds.

 

The expertise required to address artificial intelligence should not be reduced to the presence of a single “technical expert.” The impact of artificial intelligence on the media sector extends beyond programming and engineering to include ethics, human rights, philosophy, pluralism, bias, public discourse, and data protection. Therefore, the Council requires a combination of technical, media, legal, academic, and intellectual expertise, with the possibility of relying on specialized advisory committees when needed.

 

Likewise, involving representatives of media institutions does not mean granting regulated entities control over the body responsible for regulating them. The independence of the Council requires a balance that prevents domination by the government and political parties while also preventing undue influence by economic stakeholders within the sector.

 

Abolishing the Publications Court Does Not Mean Eliminating Judicial Specialization

The abolition of the Publications Court has raised concerns about the possibility of inconsistent judicial interpretations before civil courts across different regions, or about the lack of specialized expertise among judges handling complex media-related cases. This is a legitimate point for discussion and can be addressed through judicial training or by establishing specialized civil chambers to handle expression and publication-related cases within the ordinary judicial system.

However, judicial specialization should not be confused with maintaining a special criminal court for publication-related offences.

 

The fundamental reform introduced by the proposal is based on the principle that reputation-related disputes and harm resulting from publications are civil disputes, rather than criminal offences requiring the intervention of public prosecution, detention, or security investigations. The person harmed retains the right to seek judicial remedies and request compensation or correction through expedited procedures that take into account the specific nature of media-related harm, while the defendant retains the right to a defence and access to judicial review mechanisms.

 

Furthermore, ensuring consistency in judicial interpretation does not necessarily require a special criminal court. Courts of Appeal and the Court of Cassation can play their role in establishing consistent legal principles, while expertise can be strengthened through judicial training or the creation of specialized civil chambers, without reintroducing criminal procedures.

 

Between Sectoral Interests and the Public Interest

It is natural for media institutions, professional associations, and investors to assess the law based on its direct impact on their current circumstances. Provisions related to transparency, changes to the licensing system, or the reorganization of professional representation may raise concerns linked to the loss of existing powers or privileges.

 

However, media legislation cannot be built solely around protecting existing structures. It must strike a balance between the interests of media institutions, media workers, and investors, on the one hand, and the public’s rights, the protection of freedom of expression and pluralism, and the prevention of monopolies, on the other.

 

Therefore, it is important to listen to all sectoral concerns and address them transparently, without granting any party exclusive authority to determine who qualifies as a journalist, who has the right to establish a media outlet, or who may exercise freedom of expression online.

 

The Goal: Correct the Flaws, Not Abandon the Reform

The proposal includes long-awaited fundamental reforms, most notably:

- abolishing criminal penalties and pretrial detention in publication-related cases;

- adopting civil liability and compensation proportionate to the harm caused;

- protecting source confidentiality and the freedom of journalistic work;

- guaranteeing the freedom to establish media institutions through a notification system;

- strengthening transparency in ownership and funding;

- establishing an independent Media Council;

- protecting pluralism and preventing the concentration of media control;

- Guaranteeing freedom of association and journalists’ right to organize collectively

 

There remains an urgent need to remove the ambiguity introduced by Article 104 by deleting the paragraph related to false news and misleading information, and by limiting any criminal exceptions to serious and direct incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, in accordance with the Rabat Plan of Action.

 

Maharat calls on the Parliament’s Bureau to place it on the agenda of the next plenary session of the Parliament and urges its adoption, with the removal of any provision that reintroduces the criminalization of publications or undermines the reform philosophy on which it is based.

 

This report was prepared as part of the project “Support to Media Reform in Lebanon to Enhance Freedom of Expression,” with the support of the European Union.