original piece. Where incorrect content affects the public interest, the Director can demand a reply or correction under the same conditions. Article 28 sets out the grounds for refusing a reply or correction, which are that the error had already been adequately corrected, the reply or correction was written under a pseudonym or in a different language than the original piece, the content of the reply or correction was contrary to the law or to public order or morals, or more than two months had passed since the original piece was published. According to Article 29, if a foreign publication refuses to print a reply or correction, the injured party may sue the publication or its legal representative in Jordan. According to Article 45(b), the responsible person (i.e. the affected person or the Director) can file a case in court to enforce these rules while Article 45(c) provides that the Director may file a case if a foreign publication refuses to provide a reply or correction. These rules are broadly in line with international standards in this area, which recognise that replies and corrections are more effective, less intrusive ways of addressing problematical content than, for example, going to court. However, these rules could be improved in three ways. First, in recognition of the fact that a correction is less intrusive than a reply from the perspective of freedom of expression, its use should be prioritised whenever it is sufficient to resolve the problem. In other words, where a correction will redress the harm done, it should be the preferred remedy. Second, the scope of the right, which arises whenever a person is “affected” by incorrect content, is too broad. Better practice is to limit this to cases where a person has been harmed or his or her legal rights have been breached. Third, the rule relating to incorrect content affecting the public interest is problematical. This notion is not well defined and it is not appropriate for a government official to be able to place mandatory content in a publication. More professional media outlets will issue corrections whenever they publish content that is erroneous, but they should not be required by law to do so. In general, it is preferable not to have special content rules for the press and, instead, for them to be responsible under laws of general application, such as a civil code, defamation law or penal code, for illegal content. Many of the content restrictions in the Press and Publications Law are also found in the Penal Code. However, there is an important difference inasmuch as breach of the Penal Code rules attracts much heavier sanctions, often including imprisonment. Inasmuch as these rules protect freedom of the press, they are therefore useful. Recommendations: Ø Instead of including the rules found in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Law in a legal Jordan: Analysis of the Press and Publications Law, 1998, as Amended - 20