Is there clarity over the precise scope of the law?
No. Article 182(1) prohibits the dissemination of “false news or false allegations to the public” which are likely to, directly or indirectly, “undermine confidence in the credit of the state, local authorities, public establishments, and all organisations where these communities and public establishments participate”. Article 231 prohibits the publication, dissemination, disclosure or reproduction of false, manufactured, misleading or falsely attributed information, whether in good or bad faith, if it has led to or is likely to lead to “disobedience to the country’s laws or undermining of the morale of the population or discreditation of public institutions or their operation”. It is not clear how one would determine whether news or allegations are “false” or “misleading”, nor what sorts of information would be likely to discredit the state or public institutions or to “undermine the morale of the population.”
Is speech or content restricted only where it is in pursuance of a legitimate aim?
No. Speech should only be restricted where some clear and objective public harm might be caused. Some of the aims pursued by Articles 182 and 231 might be considered legitimate; for example, in the name of public order or national security. Yet, they also include aims which are unlikely to be legitimate, such as preventing the undermining of the population’s morale and for protecting the reputation of the state and its affiliates as well as public institutions.
Do any restrictions in the law account for instances where the individual reasonably believed the information to be true?
Potentially. Article 182 specifically targets those who have “knowingly” spread false news or false allegations, indicating that instances where the individual reasonably believed the information to be true would not be in scope. However, Article 231 condemns the spread of false news when made “in bad faith or not”, indicating that intention to deceive is not a prerequisite for the prohibition to apply.
Are determinations of whether speech or content is disinformation made by an independent and impartial judicial authority?
Yes, these are criminal offences and will be decided in a court.
Are any responses or sanctions proportionate?
Potentially. Article 182 provides for imprisonment from three months to two years and a fine of 24,000 to 240,000 Comorian francs (USD 53 to 530). Article 231 provides for imprisonment from one year to three years and a fine of 75,000 to 750,000 Comorian francs (USD 167 to 1,670), and – if the offender is a foreigner – a ban on staying in the country for five years. If penalties are applied without consideration of the circumstance of the offence, the intention of the individual, or the actual harm caused, these penalties would be disproportionate. Furthermore, any penalty would be disproportionate if levied in pursuit of an illegitimate aim, as potentially permitted by both articles.
Are intermediaries liable for third party content?