How new restrictions in Azerbaijan are tightening control over society and social networks
In Azerbaijan, “immoral expressions” have been banned on social media, users have begun to face penalties for their content, and unofficial “blacklists” of artists are appearing on television while programs are being shut down. Formally, these measures are presented as protecting public morality. However, taken together, they appear to expand control over information and public discourse—and to affect not only journalists or bloggers, but any social media user.
New law and first penalties
On January 26, the president of Azerbaijan approved amendments to legislation banning the online dissemination of “expressions contrary to morality,” as well as “displaying body parts in a way contrary to national moral values.” At the same time, amendments were made to the Code of Administrative Offenses: such actions are now punishable by fines or administrative arrest.
Penalties include fines ranging from 500 to 1,000 manats or detention for up to 30 days. If the same offense is repeated within one year, it may result in fines of 1,000 to 2,000 manats or imprisonment for a period of one to two months.r
Since the law came into force, six people have already been held accountable: four were placed under administrative arrest, while two were fined.
Control goes beyond a single law
Alongside the adoption of the law, pressure on the media sphere has intensified. Reports have emerged in the media about “blacklists” of artists who are banned from appearing on state television channels. A number of performers have effectively been removed from the airwaves. In addition, some TV programs have been shut down or taken off the air.
Political commentator Ganimat Zahid believes that what is happening is part of a consistent policy of restricting freedom of speech.
According to him, independent media in the country was first suppressed, and later independent journalism was effectively eliminated.
“After the authorities dealt with independent media and journalists, further tightening was inevitable. First, they created a media agency and introduced restrictive regulations, effectively forcing all media into a rigid framework. Then it became clear that even controlled platforms needed to be regulated,” he says.
From media to users
Whereas previous restrictions were mainly aimed at media outlets, attention has now shifted to social media users.
Media expert Ahad Ahadli links this to the growing influence of independent content outside traditional institutions:
“About 2–3 years ago, pressure on the media began, and independent media institutions in the country were suppressed and eliminated. All independent media were forced to leave the country. After this process of departure, the government is now trying to further close down that public space, and the main reason for this is that these individuals, the arrested TikTokers or those detained, are quite popular individuals. Their presence in live streams or broadcasting independently is seen as a kind of threat to the government, because these subjects are outside their control.”
“Anyone today can go live on YouTube, TikTok, or Instagram and express any opinion. I think the government is bothered by the fact that there are individuals outside of their control who reach millions of people,” he says.
In his opinion, the detentions and fines imposed on bloggers and users primarily serve as a means of intimidation.
“As part of this ‘closure’ process, the turn has now reached them. Yes, they are not imprisoned for long, but this is less about neutralization and more about intimidation. It is a signal both to the TikTokers themselves and to their audience, to those who leave comments: if you do not watch what you say and write, you may face the same fate,” the expert notes.
Vague wording and risks of abuse
Lawyer Fariz Namazlı points to a key problem with the new law—the lack of clear definitions.
The list of prohibited information includes categories such as “disrespect toward society” and “contradiction to national moral values.” However, their meaning is not clarified in the law.
“If cases related to this are brought before the courts, the courts should justify them and explain their reasoning. But even if we look at these court decisions, the courts do not provide such justification — they simply refer to the law and conclude that a particular expression written there constitutes disrespect toward society or contains immoral language. In this sense, the article also opens the door to abuse,” he says.
According to Fariz Namazli, another issue is that the state presents itself as the injured party, even though in such cases the complainant should be a specific individual.
“Whoever considers themselves insulted should file a lawsuit themselves and prove that their honor and dignity have been harmed. Only after that can measures be applied,” he says.
Selective enforcement
According to Qanimat Zahid, the new law will be applied selectively and will not extend to pro-government “troll” networks. He notes that such accounts do not express independent opinions, but operate on assigned narratives within a unified system of control.
“Trolls are not carriers of independent opinion—they are usually given prepared talking points or limited room to improvise around them.”
Zahid believes that even though the law exists, these accounts will continue making aggressive and insulting posts, but no sanctions will be applied against them.
“The law will mainly be used against people expressing alternative views on social media,” he emphasizes.
Qanimat Zahid believes that the younger generation is particularly at greater risk, as they are the main group active on social media and openly expressing their views.
Fariz Namazlı adds that previously other legal provisions were used to pressure users—for example, charges of disobeying police. Now, a direct legal provision has been introduced.
“Even a small post can lead to liability. Moreover, courts often impose detention instead of fines, which serves a deterrent purpose,” he notes.
Self-censorship as a result
One of the key consequences of such measures is the spread of self-censorship.
According to Ahad Ahadli, there are reports that not only authors of posts are being summoned by the police, but also people who leave comments or reactions.
“People may not be directly punished, but an example is made: if you do this, consequences are possible. This shapes behavior,” he says.
Ganimat Zahid also points to changes in the public environment: users themselves begin to demand punishment for others, tagging law enforcement agencies in posts.
“Recently, there has been an interesting trend in Azerbaijani society. I often come across it on social media and observe this trend with serious concern. A large number of social media users, when complaining about something or someone, for some reason tag either the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the State Security Service, demanding that the person be punished because they allegedly said or wrote something somewhere. Can you imagine? Society itself is turning into the bearer of censorship and even its enforcer. Achieving exactly such a social outcome is the goal of the authorities,” he emphasizes.
Why do these restrictions affect everyone?
Although the rules are formally presented as a fight against “immoral content,” in practice the new regulations are reshaping a much broader range of interactions—from media work to everyday online communication.
In practice, there are already concrete cases: several people have received administrative arrests or fines for social media posts. The protocols cite the use of “unethical language” or “immoral display of body parts.”
One of the detainees, a 27-year-old woman, said she had taken nude photos for private correspondence. Another— a 30-year-old Instagram user with an audience of around 140,000—was fined 1,000 manats for a video which, according to law enforcement, violated moral standards.
The courts have issued decisions of administrative detention ranging from 8 to 20 days, as well as fines.
At the same time, restrictions have also affected television: a number of artists and programs have been removed from broadcasting.
As a result, the new measures go beyond regulating individual cases. They are shaping an environment in which users begin to limit their own speech out of fear of possible consequences.
With support from “Mediatset”.
