The publication by electronic means of material that affects public morals and ethics […] is prohibited.
I shudder to think what they’d do to Angie with such a clause. But hey, since the government wants to “protect” me, maybe I should go ahead and submit my real name, my contact info and my address as mandated by the proposed law, since the law says that websites should provide the details of their “manager in charge”.
Speaking of that “manager in charge”, you can only operate a website if you were never convicted of anything (sorry repentant ex-convicts, no blog for you). You can only “manage” one website at a time(Liliane, you’ll have to choose one of your blogs and one only). And most importantly, if you have legal immunity, you are not allowed to manage websites. So dear representatives of the Lebanese people in parliament, I’m sorry to announce that you are not allowed to have blogs and talk directly to your constituents.
Let me double down on breaking the first clause: This is a boat-load of crap! Not just because it’s hopelessly obsolete (Twitter? Facebook? Google Plus? anyone? Who is the “manager in charge” of such accounts?) but because it’s not enforceable and people are just going to ignore it and run loops around it.
Even the reasons for creating such a law are bogus. Each website, blog, or twitter account establishes its own credibility, and people who make stuff up or steal content are eventually shunned and lose influence (if they had any to start with). The mechanics of fairness and balance are inherent on the web, since it doesn’t cost you a thing to have a voice online.
So please, please, spare us your silly “protection”, and while you’re at it, shut down your utterly useless ministry.