The battle was decided. The President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, signed the new media law, despite the campaign that demanded its return to the House of Representatives, confirming a rule that is not supposed to be a subject of discussion in the state of institutions: the media monitors and criticizes the authority, but does not replace it, and does not have the right to veto legislation. Minister of Information, Dr. Paul Morcos, confirmed that signing the law does not close the door to improvement, but rather coordination is continuing to introduce additional amendments to it.
Press unions, editors, and any media organization have the right to object and wage a battle to amend or drop material. This is freedom of expression itself. But objecting is one thing, and treating the approval of stakeholders as if it were a condition for issuing the law is another thing. The House of Representatives legislates for the entire country, and the President of the Republic exercises his powers based on the public interest, not the satisfaction of the sector that the legislation addresses.
Here, Aoun’s position was very significant. The president, who had previously returned laws to the House of Representatives, did not hesitate to use the power of response when he found reasons to do so. Therefore, his signing of the media law after all the pressure means that he did not treat the response as a duty imposed on him once the voices of the objections rose.
Most importantly, the law is not the attack on freedoms that some have tried to reduce its image to. It is the result of a legislative process that spanned about 16 years. It recognizes digital media, expands freedom of union organization, prevents pretrial detention, moves in most publishing cases toward civil liability instead of the penal approach, and sets clearer rules for transparency of ownership and financing.
Here also lies one of the real points of conflict. The law enshrines the freedom to establish and belong to unions, which puts an end to the idea that the representation of journalists must remain confined within one structure forever, and opens the door to a professional reality that is more pluralistic and consistent with the transformations witnessed by the Lebanese media.
This does not mean that the law is free from criticism. Some of its articles, especially those related to the criminalization of some forms of spreading false information, raise serious concerns and need to be reviewed. But turning an amendable article into an excuse to drop an entire legislative reform after 16 years is not necessarily the most protective option for journalists.
Information Minister Paul Morcos took a position in this file that can hardly be described as ignoring the objections. He conveyed the observations of the media to the House of Representatives, and announced that some of his proposals had not been taken into account, most notably the removal of the remaining custodial penalties, stressing that work would continue to complete the required amendments.
The problem, then, was never the right of media professionals to say “no.” The problem begins when the state is required to stop legislating because the owners of institutions or unions are not satisfied with the entire text. If this becomes a rule, no banking law will be passed without the banks’ approval, and no sector will be reformed if the beneficiaries of its existing structure object.
Joseph Aoun did not defeat the press, and the press is not supposed to be an opponent of the presidency at all. What failed was the attempt to transform media pressure into power above institutions. The law he signed today is not the end of the debate, but rather the beginning of a new phase: its reforms will be preserved, its loopholes will be corrected, and the decision in the end remains for the state that legislates for all Lebanese, not for those who have a bigger screen or a louder voice.
