Amendments to the audiovisual media law have come into focus after the Armenian government approved a draft bill proposed by the Ministry of High-Tech Industry. The changes are presented as protective measures. However, the wording and enforcement tools raise concerns about selective restrictions and pressure on critical media.
Amendments to the audiovisual media law and their stated goals
According to Minister Mkhitar Hayrapetyan, the amendments to the audiovisual media law aim to clarify restrictions related to misuse of audiovisual content. The goal is to define more precisely when these limitations apply.
The law bans content that promotes violent overthrow of the constitutional order, war propaganda, and violence. It also introduces a restriction on foreign audiovisual programs that interfere in Armenia’s domestic political life.
The bill clarifies the grounds for suspending and revoking licenses of network operators. It revises rules for content distributors and strengthens the system of fines for legal violations.
Amendments to the audiovisual media law as a tool for selective restrictions
The main concern lies not in the declared objectives, but in the implementation mechanisms. The notion of “interference in domestic political life” lacks a clear legal definition.
As a result, restrictions may extend beyond overt propaganda. Political analysis, expert commentary, opposition interviews, and criticism by international actors could also be affected. This creates a framework for selective enforcement.
Pressure on the media market
The expansion of licensing sanctions creates additional risks. Licensing systems themselves are not incompatible with democratic standards.
However, vague criteria and broad discretionary powers can turn them into tools of pressure on the media market. Smaller and critical outlets, as well as distributors of foreign content, are particularly vulnerable.
Control justified by security concerns
National security arguments play a central role in the bill’s justification. Such reasoning is common internationally, but it often leads to increased state control over media.
In this case, the balance between freedom of expression and security shifts toward stronger oversight. At the same time, safeguards against abuse remain weak.
As a result, the amendments to the audiovisual media law carry serious risks. They may narrow public debate and weaken media pluralism. While the bill cannot be clearly labeled authoritarian, its application will largely determine its impact on freedom of expression and democratic standards.