Internet regulation in Moldova: tools of manipulation?

Olivia PIRTAC,
an expert in media law

The problem of Internet regulation continues for a long time. Although there are pros and cons, and the debate continues, in the meantime, a large number of countries, including European ones, have regulated the Internet in one way or another. Moldova is, in principle, in a minority of countries where the Internet is still considered unregulated. And that does not mean that in Moldova you can do anything on the Internet and you will not be sanctioned. No, the general rules provided by law extend its action to the Internet and, also by virtue of general rules the sanctions are applied. But the lack of express provisions for certain cases and a concept of Internet regulation as well as uncertainty that often exists in methods of applying the sanctions when law violations are made through the Internet, put Moldova on the list of countries where the Internet is considered unregulated.
This may be a temporary situation, because attempts to regulate the Internet are done periodically. Last, but not least, they are done on the basis of compliance with international standards. Thus, there are a number of international treaties that refer to cybercrime, child pornography, extremism, terrorism, and so on, which the Republic of Moldova is a party to and according to which it must comply with national legislation.
Namely, under this privilege of alignment with international standards, several draft laws in the field were initiated over the past years. There were two draft laws that raised heated discussion and discontent in 2013. Under the pressure of civil society, they were then withdrawn from the Government's agenda, but one of them reappeared in an unchanged form in 2015 on the agenda of the government's public consultations [1]. Perhaps, the deep crisis in which the Government was throughout 2015, left this project aside.
However, the essential question that remains after the two draft laws were launched in 2013 is whether the government wants to implement European standards, or does it want to introduce manipulation/censorship tools, using the coverage that comply with legislation to European standards?
 (...)

Local paradoxes
 
The process of initiation of Internet regulation has its paradoxes in Moldova. For example, Law No 30 of 07.03.2013 on the Protection of Children from the Negative Impact of Information contains in Article 5 para (8) such a provision: ‘The persons providing access to public computer networks (Internet) shall ensure implementation and operation of tools for filtering online information that has a negative impact on children, means approved by the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications. At the proposal of the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications, the Government approves conditions of use of mandatory filtering means in places of access to public computer networks (Internet).’
 
A few months ago, I asked this ministry through a request for access to information if MITC approved such tools for filtering online information that has a negative impact on children and, in case they were not yet approved, if currently there is any initiative, at project level, in this regard. I received an answer in which the ministry indirectly said that he is not going to apply this provision and that ‘...to amend it, the draft law was developed. The draft law provides exposure in a new version of paragraph (8) of Article 5 of the aforementioned law, to oblige providers of electronic communications networks and/or services, to provide on a contractual basis, at the request of the users, the filtering service of digital content in the Internet with negative impact on children. The project was submitted to the Ministry of Culture through the letter of MITC No 01/1317 of 25.08.2014, that would integrate it into the draft law on the amendment and addenda to the Law No 30 of 7 March 2013 on Protection of Children Against the Negative Impact of Information.
 
This answer points to the fact that those who have drafted and adopted this law, have not even thought about its applicability (and not only on article quoted above), given that, beyond all the harmful information that can appear on the Internet, freedom of expression/information is a value that must be defended if it is maintained in a legal framework. And the boundary between permissive and harmful expression is not very easy to establish by means of filtering and the MITC is not able to do it...
 
... Recently, we were discussing this topic with colleague from online media who has definitely convinced me that the authorities want a tool of manipulation, censorship, and not a natural situation where offenses committed on the Internet are properly examined and sanctioned. "We, in fact, have nothing against the existence of mechanisms, for example, to combat child pornography on the Internet. However, they in these projects are trying to include everything and apparently to challenge freedom of expression by introducing very dubious provisions. If it were to be punctuated and very precise and, for example, it would focus on clear mechanisms for regulating content that represents child pornography, then it would be able to put these provisions into legislation. But because they have the hidden intention of abusing, we are constantly standing against their projects, ‘the colleague said, and conclusively convinced me with this argument.
The solution is very clear: if they are in good faith in trying to establish some regulations on the Internet, the authorities have to point it and narrow it down to concrete issues, with well-thought-out and argued provisions, not extended, general and abstract, as they tend to do it.
 

The article was published within the Advocacy Campaigns Aimed at Improving Transparency of Media Ownership, Access to Information and promotion of EU values  and integration project, implemented by the IJC, which is, in its turn, part of the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society project, implemented by FHI 360.
This article is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content are the responsibility of author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.