prohibit insulting Islam or senior religious authorities.
23
The Press Supervisory Board under the
Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance had
absolute power to revoke licenses, ban publications, and refer complaints to a special Press
Court. 24
As “publications” under the Press Law,
blogs and Web sites that did not obtain licenses
became subject to stricter “General Laws.” As a
part of the “General Laws,” the Penal Code
places further restrictions on speech. The Penal
Code incorporates content-based crimes such
as propaganda against the state (while leaving
“propaganda” undefined). 25 Similarly, Article 513
allows for the death penalty or imprisonment of
up to five years for speech deemed to be an
“insult to religion,” but leaves “insult” undefined. 26 Article 698 provides maximum sentences
of two years imprisonment or seventy-four lashes
for those convicted of intentionally creating “anxiety and unease in the public’s mind,” spreading
“false rumors,” or writing about “acts which are
not true.” 27 Article 609 criminalizes criticism of
state officials in connection with carrying out their
work, and calls for a fine, seventy-four lashes, or
between three and six months in prison as punishment for such “insults.”
ISPs and subscribers are also subject to
prohibitions on twenty types of activities, where
insulting Islam and religious leaders and institutions, as well as fomenting national discord and
promoting drug use or obscenity and immoral
behaviors, are prominent. 28
The Committee in Charge of Determining
Unauthorized Sites is legally empowered to identify sites that carry prohibited content. 29
Established in December 2002 (some reports
state June 2003), this Committee notifies the
MICT of criteria for identifying unauthorized Web
sites and what sites shall be blocked. The SCRC
oversees committee members from the Ministry
of Culture and Islamic Guidance, the Intelligence
and Security Ministry, and the Sound and Vision
Organization (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting). 30
In February 2007 the online conservative
journal Baztab (www.baztab.com) became the
first site reported to have been blocked by the
November 2006 regulations. According to a government official, Baztab not only failed to apply
for a license, but it also violated the regulations
by disclosing state secrets and other confidential
military information, insulting government officials, and publishing false news. 31 However, the
Supreme Court of Iran ruled against the filtering
of Baztab and it was made accessible inside Iran
again. 32 This incident sparked a debate within
Iranian legal and media circles over the authority
of the Committee in Charge of Determining
Unauthorized Sites, and whether as an executive
body (government) it was improperly involved in
making legislative or judicial decisions according
to the constitution. 33
However, not all filtering occurs through this
body. The Internet Bureau of the Judiciary also
orders ISPs to block sites through court orders,
which are considered a form of lawful punishment imposed on legal entities. 34 Tehran
Prosecutor General Saeed Mortazavi, who has
led harsh crackdowns on media and has also
been implicated in cases of the torture of
detainees, including twenty-one bloggers arrested in 2004, has also ordered that certain sites be
censored. 35 In May 2006 the MICT announced
the formation of a central filtering office, reportedly to filter illegal content, identify Internet users,
and keep a record of the sites they visit. 36 The
MICT subsequently denied having such tracking
capabilities, saying its primary objective was to
block pornography. 37
In 2001 the SCRC declared that the government was taking control of all access service
providers (ASPs). 38 ISPs were required to obtain
bandwidth from these ASPs and also to employ
filtering systems to block access to immoral,
political, and other “undesirable” content while
storing user data and reporting to the ICT
Country Summaries
295
23
The Press Supervisory Board under the
Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance had
absolute power to revoke licenses, ban publications, and refer complaints to a special Press
Court. 24
As “publications” under the Press Law,
blogs and Web sites that did not obtain licenses
became subject to stricter “General Laws.” As a
part of the “General Laws,” the Penal Code
places further restrictions on speech. The Penal
Code incorporates content-based crimes such
as propaganda against the state (while leaving
“propaganda” undefined). 25 Similarly, Article 513
allows for the death penalty or imprisonment of
up to five years for speech deemed to be an
“insult to religion,” but leaves “insult” undefined. 26 Article 698 provides maximum sentences
of two years imprisonment or seventy-four lashes
for those convicted of intentionally creating “anxiety and unease in the public’s mind,” spreading
“false rumors,” or writing about “acts which are
not true.” 27 Article 609 criminalizes criticism of
state officials in connection with carrying out their
work, and calls for a fine, seventy-four lashes, or
between three and six months in prison as punishment for such “insults.”
ISPs and subscribers are also subject to
prohibitions on twenty types of activities, where
insulting Islam and religious leaders and institutions, as well as fomenting national discord and
promoting drug use or obscenity and immoral
behaviors, are prominent. 28
The Committee in Charge of Determining
Unauthorized Sites is legally empowered to identify sites that carry prohibited content. 29
Established in December 2002 (some reports
state June 2003), this Committee notifies the
MICT of criteria for identifying unauthorized Web
sites and what sites shall be blocked. The SCRC
oversees committee members from the Ministry
of Culture and Islamic Guidance, the Intelligence
and Security Ministry, and the Sound and Vision
Organization (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting). 30
In February 2007 the online conservative
journal Baztab (www.baztab.com) became the
first site reported to have been blocked by the
November 2006 regulations. According to a government official, Baztab not only failed to apply
for a license, but it also violated the regulations
by disclosing state secrets and other confidential
military information, insulting government officials, and publishing false news. 31 However, the
Supreme Court of Iran ruled against the filtering
of Baztab and it was made accessible inside Iran
again. 32 This incident sparked a debate within
Iranian legal and media circles over the authority
of the Committee in Charge of Determining
Unauthorized Sites, and whether as an executive
body (government) it was improperly involved in
making legislative or judicial decisions according
to the constitution. 33
However, not all filtering occurs through this
body. The Internet Bureau of the Judiciary also
orders ISPs to block sites through court orders,
which are considered a form of lawful punishment imposed on legal entities. 34 Tehran
Prosecutor General Saeed Mortazavi, who has
led harsh crackdowns on media and has also
been implicated in cases of the torture of
detainees, including twenty-one bloggers arrested in 2004, has also ordered that certain sites be
censored. 35 In May 2006 the MICT announced
the formation of a central filtering office, reportedly to filter illegal content, identify Internet users,
and keep a record of the sites they visit. 36 The
MICT subsequently denied having such tracking
capabilities, saying its primary objective was to
block pornography. 37
In 2001 the SCRC declared that the government was taking control of all access service
providers (ASPs). 38 ISPs were required to obtain
bandwidth from these ASPs and also to employ
filtering systems to block access to immoral,
political, and other “undesirable” content while
storing user data and reporting to the ICT
Country Summaries
295