Social media platforms have witnessed, over the past few days, the circulation of incorrect information regarding the issuance of a government decision to increase financial allocations for the education of children of Jordanian diplomats abroad, which government sources were quick to deny. This incident was preceded by other rumors related to the postponement of the upcoming municipal elections and the occurrence of multiple cases of child abduction, which necessitated the intervention of official authorities to clarify the facts and correct the information being circulated about them.
These incidents bring back to the forefront the phenomenon of the spread of rumors in Jordanian society, and the questions they raise regarding the adequacy of legal protection to confront them, the limits of freedom of opinion and expression, and the standards that should govern government intervention to refute incorrect news.
From a constitutional perspective, Article (15) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of opinion and expression, which includes the right of every Jordanian to freely express their opinion on public policies, criticize government decisions, and circulate information related to public affairs. However, this freedom does not mean permitting the publication of false news; it is exercised within the limits drawn by the law, and its protection does not extend to fabricating incorrect facts and presenting them to the public as established truths, with the intent of harming public and private interests protected by the law.
In this context, penal legislation has addressed the phenomenon of publishing false news, most notably the Cybercrime Law No. (17) of 2023, which, in Article (15), punishes the publication of false news that targets national security and societal peace with imprisonment for a period of no less than three months, or a fine ranging between five thousand and twenty thousand dinars, or both penalties. It also authorized the Public Prosecution to pursue these crimes without the need to file a complaint if they are directed at one of the state authorities, official bodies, or public administrations.
Despite the severity of the prescribed penalties, the continued spread of rumors via social media raises questions about the effectiveness of applying legal texts and their ability to achieve the required deterrence. General and specific deterrence does not necessarily require tightening penalties or expanding criminalization as much as it requires proper law enforcement and swift legal procedures, leading to the issuance of judicial convictions whenever the crime is proven to have been committed, which reinforces the principle of the rule of law and limits the recurrence of these practices.
In addition to legal protection, the government's role in confronting rumors emerges through refuting them and correcting circulated information, which raises a question about the standard that necessitates official intervention when false or misleading news spreads. On one hand, it is not logical for the government to respond to every incorrect piece of news, because this might give some rumors attention they do not deserve and contribute to expanding their scope of spread. On the other hand, ignoring widely influential false news may lead to it becoming entrenched in the minds of citizens and raising doubts about the standards of integrity and transparency in public work.
Hence, government intervention should be based on the nature of the circulated news, the extent of its spread, and the magnitude of its potential effects on the public interest. Rumors related to national security, infringement on public funds, and citizens' rights require a swift official response once their impact reaches a level that necessitates correction. In these cases, mere denial is not enough; the response must be accompanied by clarifying the facts and providing information that refutes the rumor.
In conclusion, confronting rumors does not necessarily require tightening penalties or introducing new penal texts as much as it requires the effective application of existing legislation, while maintaining constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression. Conversely, the government's responsibility to refute rumors should not turn into an obligation to respond to every incorrect piece of news, but rather be linked to the extent of the rumor's spread and its effects on the public interest. Providing correct information to public opinion in a timely manner remains the most effective way to limit the spread of rumors and enhance citizens' trust in public institutions.
* Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan
