What you should know about Mongolia’s proposed Press Freedom bill
Nest Center for Journalism Innovation and Development NGO is closely watching the public discussions on the proposed bill as this will have a lasting impact on Mongolia’s democracy.
This article was originally posted in Mongolia Focus blog, by Dulamkhorloo Baatar.
After 27 years, Mongolia takes another stab at passing a new Press Freedom Bill. The bill was submitted to Parliament for discussion in late January 2025 and is expected to be discussed as soon as the Parliamentary sessions commence in mid-March. This is at least the third attempt to renew the current Press Freedom Law which was adopted in 1998. The simple 4-provision law of 1998 guarantees freedom of the press by prohibiting all forms of censorship and state ownership of media, but fails to guarantee protection of confidential sources, which have long been a cause of intimidation for journalists pursuing investigative reporting.
As the media environment drastically changed in the wake of social media era and false information, the country has been amending other existing laws to deal with these modern problems. Currently, defamation is criminalized under the Criminal Code which has been long frowned upon by the international community. Criminalizing defamation was one of the key reasons Mongolia’s Press Freedom Index fell to 109 (declining by 21 places year-on-year) out of 180 countries tracked by the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in 2024, its historic low since the index was tracked. The proposed legislation follows an attempt by the government in 2023 to pass the “Law on Protecting Human Rights on social media” which was vetoed by President Khurelsukh Ukhnaa following an outcry from civil society groups and journalists leading to concerns of state censorship such as blocking all forms of communication if a government member decided a certain situation was threatening national security.
A month after the proposition of the Press Freedom Bill the Minister of Digital Development, Innovation and Communication announced plans to establish an anti-disinformation unit under the government, which is seen as yet another step to shrink the freedom of expression space.
We are concerned that the legislative process follows an existing international trend of closing civic space and shrinking press freedom observed across the globe despite Mongolia’s celebrated democratic success.
Nest Center for Journalism Innovation and Development NGO is closely watching the public discussions on the proposed bill as this will have a lasting impact on Mongolia’s democracy.
Existing legislation
According to Globe International Center NGO, who have been a strong advocate of press freedom in the last 26 years, there are currently 300 mentions of the words “press” and “information” in existing legislations in Mongolia, each imposing duties and responsibilities to media organizations. Currently, defamation lawsuits are possible under the Criminal Code, under the guise of disinformation. Although Mongolia is celebrated for having an “Access to Information Law”, it singles out 68 types of information as open to public and journalists, while more than two thousand types of information are “protected” by other legislations and regulations categorized as state or organizational secrets. Despite the current proposed draft, “” said Onon Batmunkh, CEO of Globe International Center in a conversation with Nest Center for this blogpost.
There have been instances where provisions about keeping state secrets or espionage have been utilized to put public figures and journalists behind bars, leaving the public without much information about the details of the cases.
A number of key issues are still left unregulated due to the lack of legal environment. All media staff, except the journalists working for broadcast media do not enjoy the right to protect confidential sources to this day. The existing legal environment does not accept the legality of freelancers, which has been a challenge for individual journalists to access certain information in an already challenging environment.
Existing legislations except the 1998 Press Freedom law imposes duties and responsibilities to media organizations and journalists and fails to explore international best practices to support freedom of expression.
Additionally, the criminalization of defamation continues to be possible under the Criminal Code, provision 13.14. According to Globe International data, a total of 2260 cases have been opened under this provision between 2020 and 2024, and 133 instances were submitted to court. This proves that this clause poses a threat to freedom of expression. Furthermore, it opens doors for intimidation against journalists, calling them out to be questioned multiple times, just to have the case closed after multiple interrogations.
Is new legislation needed?
According to the author of the proposed bill, the Minister of Justice and Home Affairs Altangerel Oyunsaikhan, a number of key improvements are expected from the adoption of the bill. “Firstly, the adoption of the bill will help improve the press freedom index which has been constantly declining in the past few years. The ability of journalists ensured by the international conventions that Mongolia abides by will strengthen. The legality of self-regulation organization and the right to protect confidential sources will be put in place. And by providing a definition of disinformation, journalists who have been questioned under the Criminal Code will be protected. Also, we will ensure transparency of media organizations and support the development of responsible media organizations.” he said in an online panel discussion led by Nest Center in December 2024.
The right to protect confidential sources was long requested by the media community from the state. This is one of the key and welcome additions proposed in the draft bill on Press Freedom. “I personally think we need to work together to improve the proposed draft bill as it has attempted to regulate several key issues that are currently missing in the 1998 Press Freedom law, such as ensuring right to publication from the state, prohibiting any attempts to censor and shrink freedom of the press and freedom of expression, prohibiting creation of any government position with the role to censor and intimidate media and journalists, as well as ensuring the protection of confidential sources which has been long requested by civil society organizations”, said Munkhmandakh Myagmar, CEO of Press Institute of Mongolia in a separate conversation with Nest Center.
There is also need to recognize freelance journalists and renew journalism related terms to better navigate the changing information space and fit the social media first world. Additionally, there is a need to address the changing business ecosystem and differentiate individual information creators from journalists who are bound by professional ethics.
With this said, Nest Center feels that no additional regulation is needed unless it significantly improves the existing legislative environment for journalists and creates a legal safeguard for them to effectively serve the public’s right to information. After all, it is better to operate in a grey area than operating in a closed space. Nest Center’s position is to significantly improve the proposed legislation during Parliament discussion as there is significant need to legislate new trends, but is decreasing the Press Freedom in the name of a Freedom Bill.
What the draft bill fails to address?
Even after a series of discussions with groups of civil society organizations as well as the media, the bill still fails to address a number of key issues that would bring meaningful improvements to the information ecosystem.
“Some of the main issues we observed in Mongolia over the past years are, growing number of attacks against journalists in the form of threats and pressure, sometimes arrest. A certain amount of it was reported to be coming from public officials or politicians. We’ve also seen the use of defamation laws to silence journalists and politicization of media outlets through ownerships which is highly concentrated in Mongolia. And finally, what was also striking was the poor working conditions of journalists. Low salary, high workload result in some pressure to produce less value content or that is detrimental to respect of journalistic ethics” said Pierre Dagard, Head of Advocacy at RSF in a virtual panel discussion organized by Nest Center.
The current draft fails to address the deficit in advertising revenue created by the growth of social media companies. It overlooks the existing best practices that support professional journalism such as softer taxing requirements or subsidies, which would have a tremendous enabling effect on the resiliency of media organizations.
A group of international rapporteurs, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression laid out several non-invasive mechanisms to support the freedom of expression in a joint declaration in 2017, including introducing subsidies for media organizations to support their public interest reporting which are yet to be considered in existing regulations.
It also includes a number of provisions that impose more duties and responsibilities for media organizations. “The current draft is more of an industry regulation rather than a Press Freedom Bill. It includes provisions stating that the state ensures freedom of the press while it is already ensured by the Constitution implying that state holds the power over media organizations” said Mandkhaikhatan Tsevegmid, CEO of Youth Policy Watch NGO, an advocate for better governance.
There has also been a reluctance to accept international standards such as the Initiative that ensure due processes are followed during news creation, and rather preferring imposition of requirements framed as principles in the bill. ing imposition of requirements framed as principles in the bill.
More to Know about the Proposed Press Freedom Bill – Analysis and Outlook
Why are we concerned?
“The draft law on Media Freedom, presented to the Parliament, is praised for including important regulations that ensure journalists’ and media organizations’ right to protect their sources, as well as for promoting transparency in media ownership and financing. However, it is premature to conclude whether the draft law improves the Law on Press Freedom, adopted in 1998, until it is officially adopted by the Parliament and its implementation effectiveness is assessed.” said Narantsetseg Batsaikhan, CEO and co-founder of Fidelitas Partners law firm.
Additionally, even in case the proposed bill is adopted and becomes a law, there are several problematic clauses.
The draft lays out five key principles that media organizations should follow including dissemination of factual information, ensuring objectivity, prioritizing national security, human rights and the public interest, to uphold human dignity and justice and to show respect to legally protected confidentiality. “The mention of safeguarding national security is concerning as it may open a pathway for the state to intimidate journalists and sentence them behind closed doors” according to Mandkhaikhatan Tsevegmid, the CEO of Youth Policy Watch. The removal of such vague principles is also very important according to International Center for non-profit Law (ICNL). “Under international legal standards we don’t recommend prohibiting the publication of false news or require the publication of fact because the term “fact” or “false information” are very broad and gives authorities the discretion to decide that something is not fact or violates the law.” said Lily Liu, legal advisor at ICNL. The Press Institute of Mongolia also states that the mention of these vague principles poses a significant risk to journalists and indicates that several provisions need to be clarified to be effectively utilized to ensure freedom of the press.
The Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs has submitted the Press Freedom Bill as part of a package of laws regulating civic space, including the Law on protests. “Across the bills submitted by the Ministry of Justice, we see a trend to further shrink civic space and increase state interference” said Mandkhaikhatan at the request of Nest Center to comment on the legal landscape. Her concern is shared among several civil society advocates, including the Nest Center despite optimism from the international community welcoming the proposed bill.
Personal liability of journalists isn’t addressed properly in the proposed bill
Another key issue that is still left unaddressed is the personal liability of journalists. This issue that is currently being addressed by the Criminal Code is expected to be left unaddressed even after multiple mentions by civil society groups during a series of discussions with the Ministry of Justice.
The Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs have included two definitions on misinformation and a hybrid of disinformation and malinformation, claiming this will provide guidance to how provision 13.14 under the Criminal Code is applied. The problematic provision uses the term of false information in place of libel and has been used to intimidate journalists under this clause. According to Globe International Center, a total of 2260 cases have been opened under this provision between 2020 and 2024, and 133 instances were submitted to court.
If we break down the data, only on 5 cases, the journalist was found guilty, and was sentenced under the Criminal Code after libel provision was added to the law in January 2020. Between 2020 and 2024, a total of 5 journalists were found guilty under the Criminal Code provision 13.14 out of a total of 2260 cases opened. Although the data is scarce and scattered when it comes to the criminalization of libel, according to Globe International Center, in the four years leading to 2024, 5 percent of all cases opened under this clause was submitted to court and only 0.3 percent of cases was ruled guilty by court. This would mean 99.7 percent of all accused are intimidated under this clause.
Firstly, the fact that only a fraction of the cases opened are submitted to court shows that this clause is mostly used as an intimidation tool, calling journalists to be questioned only to be recused after a series of questioning. Secondly, the prohibiting of false information violates Mongolia’s commitments to the ICCPR, Article 19.
Contrary to what the Ministry of Justice claims, local lawyers say that even if a definition is provided in the Press Freedom Law, it can’t be used to define how the Criminal Code is applied, as the Criminal code is a standalone, procedural law.
Merely providing definition to disinformation in the Press Freedom Law is expected to be insufficient to address the fact that journalists are still being questioned and sentenced by this provision.
“Rather than just including terminology and content specific to the digital environment and dissemination methods in the draft Bill on Press Freedom, it is more important to outline a process that ensures the rights are implemented equally in these different environments and methods. This will help protect press freedom. The draft law needs improvement in this direction in my view.” said Narantsetseg Batsaikhan, CEO and co-founder of Fidelitas Partners law firm.
Do we believe the bill will be successfully passed this time?
If history is any indication, former President Elbegdorj had withdrawn a Press Freedom Bill he had submitted more than a decade ago as the bill’s entire concept was lost during Parliament discussion due to conflicting interests.
“It is unclear how the draft law will change during the stages of discussion and adoption by Parliament. Members of Parliament, standing committees, party, and coalition groups may introduce dissenting opinions or propose substantive changes to the draft law in accordance with the procedures set out in the Law on Procedure of the Plenary Session of the State Great Khural of Mongolia.” said Narantsetseg Batsaikhan, CEO and co-founder of Fidelitas Partners law firm.
Civil society groups are now in a wait and see mode until the Parliament session commences in March to see the initial reaction from Parliament members. Although conflicting interests of MPs may pose a threat to the passage of an ideal law, the civil society groups are hopeful that the current Parliament with record number of members, most of them new to the Parliament would uphold their duties to protect the constitutional rights.
“Regardless of the digital environment or the means of dissemination, legislators must fully uphold their duty to ensure the guaranteed exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. There is no legislation specifically aimed at ensuring the implementation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression” said Narantsetseg.
What’s next?
The spring Parliament session is expected to commence mid-March or early April.
Although the proposition of the bill is a welcome step towards ensuring freedom of expression, the international community, as well as local CSOs agree that there is a long way to go for the proposed bill to be sufficient to address existing issues.
Julie Hunter, senior legal advisor at ICNL states that, “Mongolia does stand out for its generally much better laws and having open process. I think it is a very encouraging sign. And the challenge is to safeguard and continue to protect rights and not necessarily to rush laws. I understand the eagerness to pass the law, but if they do have any of these more restrictive provisions those can be so problematic that they might eclipse the positive aspects of the law. I think the press freedom effort is really important because free journalism and access to information is one of the bedrocks to democracy. We need to protect it globally.” Pierre Dagard, from RSF says, “this draft law is a good basis on which the Parliament can work on”.
Local civil society groups and media professionals will continue to monitor the process and advocate for a legal environment that would be relevant in the years to come.