Skip to content
ENG ՀԱՅ
← Back

Agency brief

Period: 06 Apr 2020 – 04 Sept 2021 · Submissions: 20

Executive summary

Model-generated

The submissions routed to the Commission on Television and Radio focus on the boundaries of media regulation, specifically addressing offensive speech and the spread of perceived disinformation or panic. Citizens are demanding stricter oversight of the media sector to distinguish legitimate free speech from harmful content, as well as requesting the blocking of TV channels and social media pages. A key operational and policy challenge is managing the public expectation gap regarding the Commission's mandate, which is legally restricted to licensed television and radio broadcasting and does not extend to social media platforms.

Urgency signals

No urgency signals this period.

Focus areas

Model-generated

A request can support more than one focus area, so supporting counts do not sum to the submission total.

  1. 01 Regulation of offensive speech and media standards Standard First analysis period
    0 supporting requests

    Citizens are raising concerns about the quality of public discourse, demanding clear regulatory distinctions between freedom of speech and offensive language.

    • · Brief the Commission's leadership on public concerns regarding offensive speech and the existing legal mechanisms for addressing hate speech. · Within 30 days
  2. 0 supporting requests

    A citizen has requested the blocking of TV channels and social media pages accused of spreading panic and undermining security during a state of emergency.

    • · Publish a plain-language public clarification explaining the Commission's regulatory boundaries, specifically distinguishing TV/radio from social media. · Within 30 days
    • · Initiate a consultation with the National Security Service to establish a joint protocol on handling media-related security concerns during emergencies. · Within 90 days
Systemic patterns
  • Public expectation gap regarding social media regulation

    Citizens frequently conflate licensed television and radio broadcasting with online social media platforms, expecting the Commission to block Facebook pages or online outlets. This indicates a need for systematic public clarification of the Commission's legal jurisdiction.

  • Tension between free speech and content censorship demands

    During periods of heightened political or security tension, public demand for the censorship of 'offensive' or 'disinformative' content increases, testing the limits of current media regulations and the legal definitions of permissible speech.

Coordination needs

  • National Security Service · MANDATE_BOUNDARY

    Requests to block media channels or pages on national security grounds during emergencies require coordination to clarify which body holds the authority to act, particularly regarding online platforms.

  • National Assembly · POLICY_ALIGNMENT

    Addressing demands to legally distinguish legitimate free speech from offensive or insolent speech requires legislative alignment on media law definitions.

  • Office of the Prime Minister · POLICY_ALIGNMENT

    Aligning public communication strategies regarding how the state regulates media and responds to disinformation during sensitive periods.

What not to overweight

Broad demands to immediately shut down social media pages or censor political speech should not displace the Commission's structured, legally-bounded monitoring of licensed broadcasters.