More voices of concern join chorus condemning Online Safety Bill
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draft Online Safety Bill in Parliament on Tuesday, there are growing calls for it to be either amended significantly or withdrawn altogether.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.”
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.