Experts note that the government did not take lessons from the war, as the disinformation and panic during the war was due to the lack of timely and accurate official information. CSOs and international organisations criticised some of the restrictions, which then the government lifted. Many publications were removed and media outlets were fined during that period. A number of restrictions on the media publications were also applied during the war time based on the government decision. A statement was made by the Human Rights Defender that the aggressive content, hate speech and calls to violence are particularly disturbing in social media, while in case of TikTok, widely used by children, there are less possibilities for content control. Learning from the past lessons and need for information securityĭuring the Artsakh war in 2020, websites and TikTok social media were temporarily blocked, but this was not officially acknowledged as there was no legislative basis for such restrictions. In addition, she noted that it is not clear which state body will be entrusted with deciding what content is acceptable or not when martial law is declared, and urged to review to the problematic provisions. The Armenian Human Rights Defender (ombudsman) published a statement, mentioning that the amendments can bring serious restrictions to human rights, particularly freedom of expression and access to information. The criteria for restrictions are not defined and the mechanisms of following up the proportionality and necessity of decisions on restrictions are not set. Acknowledging that restrictions of freedom of expression might take place in the times of war, they indicate that the provisions included in the draft are very broad and unclear, providing room for discretionary approach and unproportionate application of restrictions. The proposed restrictions raised concerns among media organisations and civil society experts. temporary suspension (blocking) of websites, social networks, Internet applications, as well as partial or complete restriction of Internet access in the territory of the Republic of Armenia.Īccording to the draft, the government shall define the procedure of the temporary suspension of internet sites, social networks, internet applications, and restriction of internet access.restriction of content broadcast on television and disseminated via the Internet, ensuring showing movies and TV programs and disseminating information with exclusively military-patriotic content.restriction of freedom to expression, as well as temporary confiscation or detention of printing devices, radio broadcasting, sound amplifying equipment, copiers establishment of a special procedure for accreditation of journalists and special rules for using communication means.Among other proposed provisions, the draft envisages the following measures that might be applied in case of declaration of martial law: The SDNY’s ruling comes as the SEC is ramping up enforcement actions against entities that it considers ran afoul of securities law in the United States, filing suits against international players in the crypto market, including Binance, and domestic companies, including Coinbase.On Decemthe Ministry of Justice published the draft on making amendments and supplements to the RA Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” on e-draft.am, the unified website for publication of legal acts’ drafts. This means she ruled XRP is not a security when it’s sold to the broader public.īasically, the verdict is a double-edged sword, but most of the crypto community is viewing it in a positive light, probably because they are mostly retail investors invested in the non-security side of the ruling.įor context, the SEC case against Ripple has been in court since December 2020, when the agency sued the company and its two executives Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen for raising $1.3 billion in an alleged “unregistered, ongoing digital asset securities offering.” This means XRP is a security when it’s used for institutional sales, according to Torres.īut, in an interesting twist, the judge then denied the SEC’s request for summary judgment as it related to programmatic sales of XRP, among other circumstances, including sales by two of the company’s former and current leaders. In summary, after examining several different sales methods of the XRP token over time, and applying the Howey Test to each, the district judge approved the SEC’s motion for summary judgment with regard to the institutional sale by Ripple of the XRP token. District Court of the Southern District of New York, Judge Analisa Torres gave a nuanced view on the matter. The saga of Ripple Labs, the XRP token and whether the sale of its crypto token constituted a securities law violation in the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |