Uzbekistan: Law on Mass Media article 19

Recommendations:
–
Article 8 of the Mass Media Law should be amended to make it clear that everyone 
has the right to publish, in association with any group or individual of their choice. 
–
The provisions on organizing activities of the mass media in Chapter 2 are 
unnecessary and should be repealed. If the need for a limited and purely technical 
registration regime can be demonstrated, then its substantive elements should be 
based on the principles outlined in this analysis.
State registration of media outlets
The registration scheme under Chapter 3 of the Mass Media Law (including changes 
introduced through the April 2018 amendments) is highly questionable. The Chapter 
sets out that state registration is implemented by the registration authority under the 
procedures determined by the Cabinet of the Ministers of Uzbekistan (Article 19). It also 
sets out the requirements of applications for registration, including to register Internet 
websites. The Chapter specifies that the registration is not required in some instances 
(for example, for those media with circulation lower than 100 copies for “private needs”).

---

19
Furthermore, under Article 22,
35
registration can be denied in various instances, including 
“when scope and goals of the media outlet are contrary to the law” or “if information in 
the application is untrue.” There is a possibility to challenge the decision in the court. 
Article 23 (unchanged through the April 18 amendments) also outlines the process 
for “invalidation of the registration certificate” and Article 24 outlines the process for 
“suspension or termination of the activities of the mass media” (changed through the 
April 18 amendments to include notification of suspension by electronic means).
ARTICLE 19 makes several observations on these provisions:
–
We recall that licensing requirements for print media are considered illegitimate 
under international standards, as they impose a barrier to the exercise of freedom of 
expression which is not strictly necessary. As a result, registration of the print media 
is not required in many countries; beyond general companies law.
36
Even a registration 
requirement (a mere notification to the authorities of the establishment of a new 
publication), is increasingly viewed as unjustified. By contrast, international law permits 
governments to licence broadcasters, recognising that the supply of broadcasting 
frequencies is limited and that a mechanism is necessary to allocate them across 
different operators, in order to create a diverse and pluralistic broadcasting landscape.
–
As for the registration of websites, we note that the Internet may be seen as 
occupying an intermediate position between the print media and broadcasting. 
In common with broadcasting, every operator on the Internet requires the use of 
one or more unique addresses, similar to the frequencies of a radio or television 
station. But similarly to print media, there are no limits to the numbers of Internet 
websites that can exist alongside each other. The supply of potential website 
addresses is infinite, while the number of potential broadcasting frequencies is not. 
Hence, ARTICLE 19 believes that given the unlimited availability of addresses, there 
is no justification for requirement of websites/Internet based media registration. 
The Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression confirmed this position in their 
2005 Joint Declaration where they stated that