content in the press used to attract prison terms. Article 46(e) provides for a fine of between JD 500 and 1,000 for breach of Article 38(d), instead of the potential for imprisonment for defamation under the Penal Code. Finally, breach of Article 39 may attract a fine of between JD 3,000 and 5,000 pursuant to Article 46(c), although this does not preclude prosecution of the person responsible under another law. The Media Commission’s proposals for amending the Law would limit the penalties associated with breach of Article 38. According to international standards, a publication should be able to publish pseudonymous or even anonymous material, as long as it is prepared to take responsibility for the content it has published (i.e. so that anyone who feels that their rights have been infringed may sue the publication, even if the actual author is not known). The rule in Article 36(b) is legitimate, as long as the legislation on intellectual property includes appropriate exceptions to intellectual property rights, including the right of the media to quote excerpts as part of an analysis, report or critique of a larger piece. According to UNESCO’s Assessment of Media Development in Jordan: Based on UNESCO’s Media Development Indicators, Article 38 was added to the Press and Publications Law after an incident in February 2006, when two Jordanian weeklies, Shihan and Al Mehwar, reprinted some of the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper cartoons which were deemed to have depicted the Prophet Muhammad in an offensive manner. This led to the editors-inchief of the two weeklies, respectively Jihad Momani and Hashem al-Khalidi, being convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment in May 2006. The result is that breach of these rules by the print media now only leads to a fine, instead of imprisonment, albeit significantly higher fines than for other breaches of the Press and Publications Law. As of July 2015, no one had been prosecuted for violating Articles 38(a), (b) and (c).26 Under international law, blasphemy laws along the lines found in Articles 38(a), (b) and (c) are not legitimate, although it is legitimate to protect religious adherents against hate speech which is, in part, the aim of Article 38(c). According to the UN Human Rights Committee: Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith. [references omitted]27 26 Ibid., p. 87. 27 General Comment 34, note 8, para. 48. Jordan: Analysis of the Press and Publications Law, 1998, as Amended - 18