It is well established under international law that, unlike other professions, it is not legitimate to place conditions on who may be considered to be a journalist or to require journalists to belong to a mandatory association. Unfortunately, the PPL, in combination with the Jordan Press Association Law, imposes both of these types of requirements on journalists and excludes a number of people working in positions that would normally be considered to be journalists from the Jordan Press Association (JPA), such as individuals who do not work fulltime or who work for more than one outlet (freelancers). The PPL also places specific conditions on a number of more senior figures, including the responsible directors of various entities, the owners of publications, the editor-in-chief of a press publication and the responsible managers of specialised publications. These requirements are different for different positions but, for example, the editor-in-chief of a press publication must have been a JPA member for four years, work fulltime for just one publication and be fluent in the language of the publication. As with journalists in general, it is not legitimate to impose legal conditions on who may occupy these positions. Various provisions in the PPL impose a number of vague and broad both positive and negative content obligations on publications and journalists. For example, Article 7 requires journalists to maintain balance and to treat freedom of expression as an equal right for all citizens, while Article 39(d) prohibits the publication of libel or content which violates others’ freedoms. While all of these provisions carry less onerous sanctions than the Penal Code, at the same time they do not conform to international law standards for restrictions on freedom of expression, in particular that restrictions should be carefully and narrowly drawn and be necessary to protect a legitimate interest. Article 39(a) grants the public prosecutor the power to decide what the print media may publish in relation to a criminal investigation, while international standards make it clear that it is never legitimate for an official to have that sort of power. Finally, the rules on the rights of reply and correction should be tweaked, for example to remove the power of the Director of the Media Commission to demand a reply whenever incorrect content affects the public interest. One of the most controversial aspects of the PPL relates to amendments adopted in 2011 and 2012 governing websites. The definition of a press publication now includes electronic or online publications, i.e. websites. News websites, which disseminate news or comments related to the internal or external affairs of the Kingdom of Jordan, are required to obtain a licence to operate and otherwise to bring themselves into line with the rules for press publications, such as having an editor-in-chief who has been a member of the JPA for four years and who works fulltime for just one publication. Other websites are not required to register but, if they do, they receive both the benefits and obligations of press publications. It is clear under international law that requiring websites to be licensed, or even to register, is not legitimate. This is not necessary to protect any of the interests recognised under Jordan: Analysis of the Press and Publications Law, 1998, as Amended - 2