Azerbaijan's TikTok arrests: limits of 'public morality' and freedom of expression

JAMnews

Baku

TikTok arrests in Azerbaijan

In late July and early August, Azerbaijani authorities detained a number of popular TikTok users one after another under administrative procedures. Courts later sentenced them to short-term administrative detention.

Officials said the arrests were prompted by “clear disrespect for society”, “offending public morality” and behaviour deemed contrary to “national and moral values”. However, the sequence of the arrests and the broad interpretation of the legal provisions involved have once again raised questions about the balance between freedom of expression and the state’s efforts to protect what it defines as “public morality”.

‘Public order’ as pretext: Azerbaijan’s recent legislative changes

Considered separately, the changes span different areas, but together they signal a new phase in the state’s punitive policy.

According to publicly available information, the following individuals have been detained:

Magsad Bagirov, known online as “Chevik”, was detained on 27 July. The TikToker, known for his anti-religious statements, received a 10-day administrative detention sentence under Article 510.2 of Azerbaijan’s Code of Administrative Offences for actions publicly displayed online that were deemed offensive to public morality.
Uzeyir Abbas was detained on 28 July over posts which authorities said had insulted religious beliefs.
Mujgan Mammadzade was detained on 30 July in Baku’s Sabunchu district. A court sentenced her to 10 days of administrative detention under the same Article 510.2.
Murad Gasymov, known as “Murad Sade”, was detained on 30 July and sentenced to 30 days of administrative detention.
Sanur Azizov was detained on 1 August in Baku’s Sabail district. A court sentenced him to eight days of administrative detention under Article 510.1, which covers petty hooliganism, defined as actions showing clear disrespect for society.
Alikram Heydarov was detained on 2 August and received an eight-day administrative detention sentence under the same Article 510.1.

Legal background

The legal basis for these arrests stems from amendments to the Law on Information, Informatization and Information Protection, which came into force in early 2026.

The amendments introduced liability for publishing online content deemed to “offend public morality”, show “clear disrespect for society”, contain “obscene language or gestures”, or involve “the display of body parts in a manner contrary to national and moral values”. Articles 510.1 and 510.2 of Azerbaijan’s Code of Administrative Offences have become the main legal mechanisms for enforcing these provisions.

The problem is that terms such as “public morality” and “national and moral values” are not clearly defined in Azerbaijani legislation. As a result, the same act may be treated in one case as an exercise of the right to freedom of expression and, in another, as an administrative offence amounting to hooliganism.

Changes to Azerbaijan’s Law on Information could become tool for repression

The online distribution of content that “openly expresses disrespect for society and insults public morality” is banned.

Lawyer’s opinion

“The way Articles 510.1 and 510.2 of Azerbaijan’s Code of Administrative Offences are being enforced, together with the amendments introduced in 2026 to the Law on Information, Informatization and Information Protection, raises serious legal concerns.

Terms such as ‘public morality’, ‘clear disrespect for society’, ‘national and moral values’, and ‘obscene language or gestures’ are not defined through clear, objective or predictable criteria. As a result, one official or judge may view the same act as a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, while another may classify it as an administrative offence.

Article 47 of Azerbaijan’s Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and expression, while Article 71 guarantees the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of expression and allows restrictions only when they are prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society and proportionate. According to the established case law of the European Court of Human Rights, any restriction must also be foreseeable. People must be able to understand in advance which actions could expose them to legal sanctions.

The current provisions do not meet that standard. Their wording is so broad and open to subjective interpretation that they can apply to almost any critical, satirical, anti-religious or otherwise unconventional content. This creates a risk of selective enforcement, encourages self-censorship and effectively restricts freedom of expression.

Short-term administrative detention may formally appear to be a relatively mild sanction. However, its systematic use can have much broader consequences. People begin avoiding sensitive topics, while the range of acceptable content on online platforms gradually shrinks to what is considered the safest. Rather than strengthening public morality or public order, this approach increases legal uncertainty.”

Azerbaijan courts hand down in absentia sentences to critics abroad

The rulings are based on accusations of calling for violent action against the state and inciting mass unrest.

Human rights and legal uncertainty

The core concern underlying this assessment is legal uncertainty. In legal theory and international practice, it is regarded as one of the most serious threats to fundamental rights and freedoms because it affects not only those who face prosecution, but also encourages society as a whole to act more cautiously for fear of punishment.

Selective enforcement: Vaguely worded legal provisions create conditions for selective enforcement. The same platform may host other forms of offensive, hateful or obscene content, yet authorities may choose to prosecute only particular types of posts, such as anti-religious content or material they consider “disrespectful”. Such practices raise questions about compliance with the principle of equality before the law, guaranteed by Article 25 of Azerbaijan’s Constitution, as well as the prohibition of discrimination.
The chilling effect: The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly warned that vague and overly broad legal provisions pose risks to freedom of expression. Fear of punishment may encourage people to censor themselves. This effect is particularly visible on platforms such as TikTok, where younger users may begin avoiding sensitive topics and refrain from expressing critical or unconventional views. As a result, the space for public debate narrows and the diversity of opinions declines.
The principles of necessity and proportionality: Even if protecting public morality is accepted as a legitimate aim, any restrictions must be necessary and proportionate to that objective. Administrative detention ranging from eight to 30 days may appear relatively short. However, its systematic and frequent use can turn punishment into a tool of control. Given the availability of alternative measures, such as warnings, platform moderation policies and media literacy programmes, the necessity of depriving people of their liberty raises important legal questions.