News
More voices of concern join chorus condemning Online Safety Bill
View(s):As the government prepares to table the draft Online Safety Bill in Parliament on Tuesday, there are growing calls for it to be either amended significantly or withdrawn altogether.
The bill has been described as Orwellian in nature, with particular concern at moves to set up a highly powerful Online Safety Commission whose members are appointed directly by the President.
On Friday, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) became the latest body to come out against the proposed bill, expressing concern over the legislation. A statement claimed that the newly proposed bill, if adopted in its present form, “would serve to crush free expression and further contract an already shrinking civic space in Sri Lanka.”
The ICJ said it considers that several provisions of the bill “would serve to undermine the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, including freedom of information and expression.” It cited provisions related to the setting up, appointment and functions of an Online Safety Commission and other experts, as well as the “vague and overbroad wording of conduct designated as punishable offences and unnecessary and disproportionate punitive sanctions.”
| SLPI points out dangers to media freedomThe Sri Lanka Press Institute (SLPI), its constituents and affiliated organisations have expressed deep concern over the proposed Online Safety Bill. In a statement issued yesterday, the SLPI said it is of the opinion that the present bill has several controversial elements that are not conducive for the media community. The proposed bill consists of an overbroad and vague definition such as “statement of facts” and it is not clear as to who decides its definition, said the Institute. Furthermore, the Online Safety Commission, appointed by the Executive, has the power to issue notices and the ability to stop the spread of ‘false’ statements. This raises concerns on the potential misuse of the term “false statement” and its interpretation, the statement added. The bill also criminalises communication of facts that could be considered harassing, potentially impacting media freedom, as reporting news could be seen as “alarming or distressing” to someone, the SLPI pointed out. “It is evident that the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of citizens, in terms of freedom of speech and expression, is threatened through the proposed Online Safety Bill,” the statement said. “While the SLPI acknowledges the need to address disinformation and hate speech online, we emphasise that this concern should be met by measures that are both necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the objective thereto. SLPI reiterates that the instant bill does not reflect such a balance in its content and purpose,” it asserted. | |
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) meanwhile, called upon the government to withdraw both the Online Safety Bill and the Anti-Terrorism Bill. The BASL noted that at the meeting of its Bar Council, it was unanimously resolved that both bills “seriously impinge on the liberty and freedom of the people and will have a serious impact on democracy and the rule of law in the country.”
The association observed that both bills have been introduced without due consultation with the stakeholders including the BASL.
The diplomatic community too has expressed concern over the present nature of the bill. “As Sri Lanka deliberates the Online Safety Bill, it’s crucial to include input from the tech sector, civil society, and diverse experts. Preserving freedom of expression is essential—it’s a fundamental right that is non-negotiable and must be safeguarded,” US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Julie Chung said on X (formerly known as Twitter) yesterday.
Opposition parties have also severely criticized the proposed bill. Speaking in Parliament, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa said it was a clear attempt to crack down on dissent.
Mr Premadasa also referred to the proposed Online Safety Commission, noting that its chairman and members will be appointed by the President. “It is our belief that the President is trying to control what people post on social media through a group of persons he picks himself,” said the opposition leader. He likened it to a sort of policy one would see in North Korea. Mr Premadasa called on the government to immediately withdraw the bill.
The bill defines “fact” as that which “includes anything or state of things which are seen, heard or otherwise perceived by the users of internet-based communication services.”
“The first question that would arise is what is “statement of fact” and who would decide what constitutes statement of fact?” questioned Ashwini Natesan, Legal Consultant / Research Fellow specializing in Technology, Media and Communications Law, in a brief analysis of the bill submitted to the Sri Lanka Press Institute (SLPI).
She noted that there are many offences under the bill ranging from false statements amounting to contempt to intentional insult by false statement with intent to provoke a breach of peace. “These widely worded offences could lead to limiting freedom of expression,” she warned.
The best way to say that you found the home of your dreams is by finding it on Hitad.lk. We have listings for apartments for sale or rent in Sri Lanka, no matter what locale you're looking for! Whether you live in Colombo, Galle, Kandy, Matara, Jaffna and more - we've got them all!