COLOMBO – Sri Lanka is stubbornly pushing for a controversial Online Safety Bill (OSB) which has raised concerns among media outlets, rights groups, social media activists, and those who use the internet for a livelihood.
Though the government initially said the expected legislation was to protect children and women from negative impacts of the internet like pornography and harassment, the proposed law has alarmed many due to its many grey areas and lack of proper definition.
Diplomats have said the United Nations also have raised concerns over the bill.
Political analysts have said President Ranil Wickremesinghe government has gradually started to face public criticism with the policies made to suit the conditions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan including higher taxes.
They say Wickremesinghe government is trying to curb public criticism in social media and one critic said “possibly trying to prevent” another mass street protests like last year’s one that ousted Wickremesinghe’s predecessor Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The key objectives of the bill includes protecting persons against damage caused by misinformation and introducing measures to detect, prevent, and safeguard against misuse of online accounts and bots to commit offences.
However, a commission appointed by the president determining what should be prohibited online, non-specific offences that could manipulate the interpretation of the bill, and the commission having quasi-judicial powers have raised concerns that the bill, if it passed as it is, could threaten the media freedom as well as freedom of expression.
Wajira Abeywardana, the chairman of President Wickremesinghe’s centre-right United National Party (UNP) and a close ally of the leader said the bill “must be passed” in the Parliament.
“We have tabled this bill in the Parliament. This must be passed. This is a national requirement,” Abeywardana told reporters in Colombo at a media briefing on Monday (16).
Abeywardana, a legislator who replaced President Wickremesinghe in the Parliament after him being elected as the president cited examples of how online hate speech has triggered riots between ethnicities and youth committing suicides due to online harassments.
“The hate against ethnicities should be stopped. False information must be stopped. A society of this nature should be eliminated. This will be a strong backing to reveal the truth. Once this bill is passed, the truth will prevail,” he said.
“I would like to state that the legislations that have been followed by countries like Singapore, China, Malaysia, South Korea should be introduced here as well,” he said, adding “We must control defamation and misinformation.”
Noting that developed countries have similar online safety legislation, he said, Sri Lanka, as a country which wants to become a developed nation, also should adapt the bill with the consensus of everybody.
Though the Online Safety Bill was tabled in the Parliament early this month, at least 18 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against the bill citing that the proposed legislation is infringing fundamental human rights.
The Supreme Court is set to take up the petitions for deliberation on Wednesday (18).
Some legal experts have opined that the bill, as in the current format, may need a two-third Parliament majority and/or referendum to make it a law.
Some stakeholders relevant to the bill at a meeting with Public Security Minister Tiran Alles last week said that a social agitation has been created due to lack of broader discussion about the bill before it was presented to the parliament.
They also said the bill could deprive freedom of expression with a politically motivated non-independent commission overseeing online content.
Alles, who has tabled the controversial bill in the Parliament, has agreed to have broader consultation with key stakeholders before voting in the legislature.
Legal experts have strongly opposed the bill as it gives legal powers to a commission whose members will be handpicked by the president.
However, Abeywardana said the commission will forward the violators to magistrate court or a court above that for legal action.
-economynext.com
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.