The government is of the opinion that the Online Safety Bill must be amended, Cabinet Spokesman Minister Vijitha Herath said.

Addressing the media today, Minister Herath said the government will take measures to amend the said bill once a new Parliament is established.

He further said a decision will be taken after holding the necessary discussions in this regard.

Minister Herath also said that a decision will also be taken on whether the Online Safety Bill requires amendments or a new bill needs to be presented to Parliament. 

The Online Safety Bill which was published in the Sri Lankan Government Gazette in September 2023, was passed in the Parliament of Sri Lanka in January 2024.  

A majority of MPs supported the bill, while the Opposition claimed that the amendments proposed were not consistent with the Supreme Court’s determination.

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka thereafter, determined that the several Online Safety Bill provisions are not consistent with the Constitution.

In October, the government agreed to revise the Bill in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determinations announced on November 07, 2023.

Key objectives of the bill include establishing the Online Safety Commission, making provisions to prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact in Sri Lanka, preventing the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes, making provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka, and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements of fact. (NewsWire)

The post Online Safety Bill : Govt announces stance appeared first on Newswire.

The Cabinet of Ministers has granted approval to gazette and table the revised Online Safety Bill in Parliament. 

On par with the decision of the Supreme Court on the Online Safety draft bill and after it was passed in Parliament, the bill is currently effective as the Security of Online Methods Act No. 9 of 2024. 

The government states prior to the bill being passed in Parliament, concerns were raised by experts in the field about amendments to certain sections of the bill, but there was no possibility of including such amendment proposals in the bill at the committee stage. 

Therefore, approval of the Cabinet of Ministers was granted at their meeting in February 2024 to prepare a draft bill to amend the Online Safety Bill with the said amendments. 

Accordingly, clearance from the Attorney General has been received to the draft bill prepared by the Legal Draftsman. 

As such, the Cabinet has also approved the proposal forwarded by the Minister of State for Defence to publish the said draft bill in the government gazette notification and subsequently present it to Parliament for approval. (Newswire)

The post Sri Lanka to revise controversial Online Safety Bill appeared first on Newswire.

Samagi Jana Balawegaya MP Kavinda Jayawardena apologized in Parliament for not voting in favour of passing the Online Safety Bill (OSB).

“I personally saw it as an important Bill, but it was depicted as a demon. Recently, I spoke to an official at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to lodge a complaint regarding a defamatory statement. I asked if the complaint could be lodged under the OSB.”

MP Jayawardena said that the official questioned him about his vote against the Bill in response.

“I felt embarrassed. We were shown that the OSB would hurt our democratic and political rights. We were told that our statements online would be used to imprison us,” he said.

MP Jayawardena also mentioned that the CID official informed him that the members of the Online Safety Commission had not yet been appointed, urging the government to make the necessary appointments promptly.

“I regret voting against this Bill, and I apologize for my vote,” the MP said. (Newswire)

The post SJB MP apologizes for voting against Online Safety Bill appeared first on Newswire.

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has ordered to dismiss the Fundamental Rights (FR) Petition filed by Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M. A. Sumanthiran challenging the Speaker’s signing of the Online Safety Bill into law.

Filing the petition, MP Sumanthiran challenged the passing of the Online Safety Bill in Parliament, calling on the Supreme Court to issue an order that how the bill was passed in Parliament was against the law. 

MP Sumanthiran had claimed that the Online Safety Bill has not been adopted legally as the government had failed to include the Supreme Court’s determination on the said Bill at the time it was being passed in Parliament.

However, Supreme Court justices Priyantha Jayawardena, Shiran Gunaratne, and Achala Wengappuli refused leave to proceed with the petition without taking it up for examination. (NewsWire)

The post Online Safety Bill : SC dismisses MP Sumanthiran’s petition appeared first on Newswire.

By Jagath Liyanarachchi

Background

Keheliya Rambukwella, Minister of Mass Media and Ali Sabry, President’s Counsel, Minister of Justice presented a cabinet paper on April 1, 2022, seeking permission from the Cabinet of Ministers to present a draft of a bill to “protect society from the harm caused by false propaganda on the internet.”

This had been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on April 19, 2021. Thereafter, on or about February 21, 2022, the Minister of Public Security had been handed over the responsibility of acting further on the draft bill.

As such, Tiran Alles, the Minister of Public Security, presented to the Cabinet of Ministers the cabinet paper bearing No. 23/1025/626/011 alongside the draft bill prepared by the Legal Draftsman to “protect society from the harm caused by false propaganda on the internet”, and sought approval for the same.

The Cabinet of Ministers granted its policy-wise approval on May 30, 2023. The Cabinet of Ministers decided that the Online Safety Bill could be presented in Parliament after the Electronic Broadcast Regulatory Authority Bill is tabled in parliament for consideration.

When the Cabinet was convened on August 8, 2023, it was informed that the Online Safety Bill could be presented to the Cabinet of Ministers for approval. Accordingly, Tiran Alles, the Minister of Public Security presented the Online Safety Bill under Cabinet paper dated August 29, 2023 bearing No. 01/10 (O.S.B /2022 (memorandum No. 34/2023), and sought approval from the Cabinet of Ministers for the said Bill, and for it to be published in the Gazette and to be presented to the Parliament.

The Cabinet of Ministers approved the said memorandum on September 4, 2023, and the Online Safety Bill was published in the government gazette on September 18, 2023, as directed by the Minister of Public Security. Thereafter, Tiran Alles, the Minister of Public Security presented the said bill to the Parliament for its first reading on October 23, 2023.

Public Protests

When the bill was published in the Gazette, several parties launched protests against it. Thse included civil society organizations, trade unions, professionals in the Information Technology sector, entrepreneurs, and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and other lawyers’ collectives too voiced their protest.

Also, Asian Internet Coalition, which consists of 13 internet service providers, had shown their displeasure by way of a letter addressed to the Minister of Public Security.

Supreme Court Determination

As provided for in Article 121 of the Constitution, the citizens of the country have the right to question the constitutionality of a bill, by way of a petition to the Supreme Court, within 14 days from the date of such bill being included in the Order paper of the Parliament. Accordingly, 47 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against this Bill.

At the commencement of supporting the petitions, the Deputy Solicitor General representing the Attorney General tendered a lengthy document to Court and stated that the government is ready to incorporate amendments at the committee stage of the Bill. As per the said document, it was evident that the government was ready to amend 30 sections of the Bill. (The draft Bill consisted of 52 sections).

The petitions were supported on October 18 and 19, 2023, and the Speaker of the Parliament presented the determination of the Supreme Court to the Parliament on 07th November, 2023.

According to the said determination, if sections 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 42, 45, 53 and 56 of the draft bill were to be passed as they are, provisions of Article 84(2) of the Constitution shall be invoked, and as such, it was to be passed by a 2/3rd special majority including the MPs who are not present.

However, if the said sections are amended at the committee stage in line with the amendments proposed by the Supreme Court in its determination, this bill could be passed with a simple majority. It was further stated in the determination that the rest of the provisions of the bill were not inconsistent with the Constitution.

Accordingly, if the draft bill was to be passed by a simple majority, amendments as recommended by the Supreme Court for 32 sections were to be incorporated at the committee stage.  

Adoption of the Draft Bill

The debate on the draft bill was held on January 23 and 24, 2024. Before commencing the debate, the Opposition brought forward an objection stating that although this bill has been forwarded to the relevant Sectoral Oversight Committee according to the standing orders of the Parliament, no proper report has been submitted to the Parliament yet.

Therefore, the Opposition objected against the commencement of the debate on this bill. They further requested to not hold the debate on the bill, since the Attorney General has not agreed to incorporate the amendments recommended by the Expert committee appointed by the subject Minister. 

Thereafter, a vote was held to decide whether the bill should be taken up for debate or not, and 83 votes were cast in favour of the decision to hold the debate, against which 50 votes were casted. Henceforth, the debate commenced. Another vote was held at the end of the second reading of the bill, for which 108 votes were cast in favour of the bill and 62 against it. 

When the government incorporated amendments during the committee stage, the opposition took up the objection that such amendments were not in line with the Supreme Court determination. However, although Vijitha Herath MP asked for a vote at the end of the third reading, the Speaker stated that the allocated time to request for a vote has come to an end, and therefore he will consider it to be marking the enactment of the draft bill. Hence, the third reading was passed without a vote. 

Objectives of the Act

Section 3 of the Act sets out the objectives of the Act as follows: 

To protect persons against harm caused by communication of prohibited statements online;

To ensure protection from communication of statements in contempt of court or prejudicial to the maintenance of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary;

To introduce measures to detect, prevent and safeguard against the misuses of online accounts and bots to commit offences under this Act; and

To prevent the financing, promotion and other support of online locations which repeatedly communicate prohibited statements in Sri Lanka, by way of online account or through an online location.

Offences Under the Act 

Several classes of offences have been introduced under the Act.

Communication of prohibited statements online.

Committing child abuse by way of an online statement.                     

Making bots to commit an offence.

Offences pertaining to declared online locations.

Prohibited Statements

The Act has identified statements which are prohibited publishing online, and publishing of such statements has been identified as a criminal offence. The said offences are included in Sections 12 to 20 of the Act.

Posing a threat to national security, public health or public order or promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of people, by communicating a false statement. Being convicted of this offence will make a person liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or for a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand rupees or both. (Section 12).

Communication of a false statement which amounts to contempt of court under any relevant written law. The provisions of said relevant written laws shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in sentencing such person. (Section 13).

Any person, by communicating a false statement online, gives provocation to any person to cause the offence of rioting, shall be liable (a) for an imprisonment up to 5 years or to a fine up to Rs. 500,000/- when rioting has been committed; OR (b) for an imprisonment up to 3 years or to a fine up to Rs. 300,000/- when rioting has not been committed (Section 14).

Causing disturbance to any assembly of religious ceremony by communicating a false statement online. On conviction, such a person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand rupees, or to both (Section 15)

Communicating a false statement online, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings. On conviction, such a person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand rupees or to both. (Section 16).

Committing the offence of online cheating by communicating a false statement to any person by way of an online account or through an online location. On conviction, such a person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine not exceeding seven hundred thousand rupees or to both. (Section 17).

Committing the offence of online cheating by personation, by means of an online account. On conviction, such a person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or to a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand rupees or to both (Section 18).

Circulating false statement online, with intent to cause mutiny or an offence against the State. On conviction, such a person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine not exceeding seven hundred thousand rupees or to both (Section 19).

Communicating willful statements with intention to cause harassment. On conviction, such a person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand rupees or to both (Section 20).

Committing Child Abuse Online

Any person, who, by way of an online account or through an online location, commits child abuse, i.e., which constitutes an offence within the meaning of sections 286A, 288, 288A, 288B, 308A, 360A, 360B, 360C, 363, 364A, 365 of the Penal Code, and publishes any photograph, audio or video of abusive or pornographic nature relating to a child. (Section 21)

Making or Altering Bots to Commit an Offence

Making or altering a bot with the intention of communicating or enabling any other person to communicate, by means of a bot, a statement which constitutes an offence under this Act. (Section 22)

Magistrate’s Courts are empowered to inquire into cases filed against these offences. 

Measures to be Taken by the Commission with regard to Prohibited Statements (Section 23)

A person aggrieved by the communication of a prohibited statement may make a complaint providing information pertaining to such communication to the Commission. The Commission shall carry out investigations through the officers of the Commission, and upon being satisfied that sufficient material exists to show that a prohibited statement is communicated, it may issue notice to the person who communicated such prohibited statement to take measures to prevent the circulation of such prohibited statement.

A person to whom such notice has been issued shall comply with such notice within 24 hours. Where any person fails to comply with such notice, the Commission shall issue a notice to the internet service provider or internet intermediary on whose online location such prohibited statement has been communicated –

To disable access by the end users in Sri Lanka to such prohibited statement; or

To remove such prohibited statement from such online location.

When a person or an internet service provider or internet intermediary, as the case may be, fails to act in accordance with the above provisions, the Commission may apply to the Magistrate’s Court by way of petition and affidavit to obtain an order directing such person or internet service provider or internet intermediary to comply with such provisions.

Applying for a Court Order to Prevent Circulation of Prohibited Statements (Section 24)

Any person affected by the communication of any prohibited statement may apply to the Magistrate’s Court by way of petition and affidavit to obtain an order to prevent the circulation of such information.

Upon considering such application, the Magistrate may issue a conditional order to such person or the internet service provider or internet intermediary on whose online location such prohibited statement has been communicated.

Declared Online Locations

The Commission may declare in a Gazette notification an online location as a “declared online location”, if three different prohibited statements have been communicated to the end users in Sri Lanka on such online location in respect of which conditional orders were made absolute by the Magistrate under section 24, and at least three of such statements had first been communicated to the end users in Sri Lanka on such online location within six months prior to the date of a declaration under this section is made (An online location means any website, webpage, chatroom or forum, or any other thing that is hosted on a computer and can be seen, heard or otherwise perceived by means of the internet).

If any owner or operator of a declared online location fails to comply with the notice, the Commission or any person authorized by the Commission may apply to the Magistrate for an order directing owner or operator to disable access by the end users in Sri Lanka to such declared online location or to communicate to all end users in Sri Lanka who access such declared online location, a notice declaring that the online location is the subject of a declaration. Such persons, however, have the right to show cause as to why the conditional order may be not made absolute, and the Court may proceed to make such Order absolute or otherwise, based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Where the owner or operator of a declared online location fails to comply with such order, such owner or operator of a declared online location commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six years or to a fine not exceeding ten million rupees. (Section 28)

An internet service provider and/or an internet intermediary must take reasonable steps to ensure that any paid content is not communicated in Sri Lanka on the declared online location, nor such declared online location is promoted. Receiving any payment from such an online location is also prohibited. A person who fails to comply with the said provisions commits an offence and shall on conviction by a competent Magistrate’s Court be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine not exceeding ten million rupees, which are empowered to do so. (Section 29)

Any person soliciting, receiving or agreeing to receive any financial or other material benefit as an inducement or reward for operating a declared online location commits an offence. (Section 30)

A person expending or applying any property to help or promote the communication of prohibited statements to the end users in Sri Lanka on a declared online location commits an offence. (Section 31)

Abatement Of Fake Online Accounts And Coordinated Fake Behaviour 

The Commission is empowered to notify an internet intermediary to abate fake online accounts and coordinate fake behaviour. Also, Section 18 of the Act cites that maintaining such fake online accounts is an offence punishable by imprisonment.

Registration Of Social Media Platforms 

Section 11(j) of the Act cites that the websites providing social media platforms to the end users in Sri Lanka should be registered by the Commission in such manner as may be specified by rules made under this Act.

Online Safety Commission

This Commission consists of 5 members, who are appointed by the President, upon receiving approval by the Constitutional Council. The tenure of members of the Commission is 3 years.

The President has the power to remove any member citing reasons, with the approval of the Constitutional Council, after holding an investigation. (Section 7)

Powers and Functions of the Commission (Section 11)

To issue directives to persons, internet service providers or internet intermediaries, who have published or communicated or whose service has been used to communicate any prohibited statement, requiring them to provide to persons who have been adversely affected by any prohibited statement, an opportunity of responding to such prohibited statement; 

To issue notices to persons who communicate prohibited statements, to stop the communication of such statements;

To issue notices to persons who issue communications, internet service providers and internet intermediaries; 

To register the websites providing social media platforms;

To introduce codes of practice for social media platforms;

To issue notices to any internet service provider or internet intermediary to disable access to an online location which contains a prohibited statement;

Challenges To The Legitimacy Of The Act

The drafting of the bill was extremely confidential, and even a member of the drafting committee resigned midway, after showing his protest. 

Also, no stakeholder has been consulted when preparing this draft bill. 

Initially, preparing the draft bill was under the purview of the Ministry of Justice, and then it was suddenly handed over to the Ministry of Public Security. The Information Officer of the Ministry of Public Security has stated that such handing over was done without any note or memo in writing. 

When the draft bill was published in the Gazette, civil societies collectively requested the subject Minister to reevaluate the draft bill, but he paid no attention or consideration to such request. 

Before supporting the Applications before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General tendered a document to Court and informed that the government expects to incorporate amendments to 30 sections of the bill during the committee stage. Expected amendments to 30 sections of the bill out of 56 overall clearly signify the existence of serious errors in the bill. 

51 petitions were filed at the Supreme Court against this bill, which marked the highest number of petitions against a single draft bill and signifies the extent of protest from the public.

As per the Supreme Court determination, if the bill is to be passed by a simple majority, 32 sections were to be amended. As such, the Supreme Court ordered to amend more than half of the bill during committee stage.  

However, some amendments recommended to be incorporated to the bill by the Supreme Court were not incorporated at the committee stage in the Parliament. 

The Leader of the Opposition stated in a public meeting that 9 amendments recommended by the Supreme Court to be incorporated to the bill were left out, hence the Opposition is intending to present a No Confidence Motion against the Speaker.

Although the bill was directed to a Sectoral Oversight Committee as per the standing orders of the Parliament, since there was no proper report forwarded by them, the Opposition argues that holding the debate is unlawful.

The opposition alleges that although Vijitha Herath MP asked for a vote at the end of the third reading, the Speaker proceeded to adopt the bill into legislation stating that the allocated time to request for a vote has come to an end.

After the vote was concluded, many civil society organizations collectively requested the Speaker to not certify an Act which had not incorporated amendments as recommended by the Supreme Court. 

United Nations Human Rights Council, through a message posted on X, stated that this Act will have a negative impact on the rights of Sri Lankans including their right to express. 

Impact On Rights To Speech And Expression

When persons making certain statements are informed to stop publicizing their statements consequent to a direction / order pertaining to prohibited statements under the Act is made by the said non-independent commission, Presumption of Innocence is challenged.

Also, there is a possibility that social media activists will be afraid to express themselves when a non-independent commission is vested with the authority to make binding orders. 

Decisions of a non-independent commission could be politically-motivated, hence it will obstruct the right of citizens to freely express themselves. 

The offences pertaining to prohibited statements under this act are not definite and leaves room for broad interpretations, which imposes an unnecessary limit on the right to express.

As the offence termed ‘Prohibited Statements’ has been given room for a very broad interpretation, directives of the commission could be issued against creators who publish creative communication content online.

Especially, considering the gravity, seriousness and onerous nature in deciding the truthfulness or the lack of it of a particular statement, as legal measures will be taken even against publications that were made in good faith, opportunities to express will be vehemently restricted. 

As there is a condition that Social Media platforms have to be registered, any social media platform that does not obey such condition could leave Sri Lanka, there is a risk that opportunities of the citizens to express will be further curtailed.  

Also, as internet service providers and social media platforms could be criminally responsible under this act, it will prompt such ventures to leave the Sri Lankan market, and there is a risk of expression of opinions on social media being limited or rather coming to a complete stop.  

Internet service providers leaving the Sri Lankan market will be extremely detrimental and prejudicial to those who are engaged in online businesses and marketing. 

As some bot activity carried on by foreign companies pertaining to Sri Lanka cannot be stopped due to technical reasons, only citizens residing in Sri Lanka can be held responsible for such offences. 

When shedding light on how Section 3 of the ICCPR Act and Section 120 of the Penal Code have been (mis)used by successive governments, it is most pertinent to note that there is a huge risk for the provisions proposed by this act being used to oppress persons with opposing ideologies.

Positives in the Bill / Act  

All offences under the act have been classified as Non-Cognizable Offences i.e., any person charged with an offence under this act could not be arrested without a warrant.

All offences under the act have been classified as bailable.

Jagath Liyanarachchi is an Attorney-at-Law who can be reached at jagathliyanarachchi@gmail.com.

Factum is an Asia Pacific-focused think tank on International Relations, Tech Cooperation and Strategic Communications accessible via www.factum.lk.

The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the organization’s. 

The post Factum Special Perspective: Online Safety Act – Its Ambit and its Impact appeared first on Newswire.

The Digital Marketing Association of Sri Lanka (DMASL) has actively called upon the government to reconsider and amend the contentious Online Safety Act to ensure a seamless operation of the Sri Lanka Digital Marketing ecosystem.

In line with this advocacy, DMASL recently organized a comprehensive panel discussion to delve into the implications of the Online Safety Bill on the Digital Marketing industry. The event brought together prominent figures in the field, including MP Eran Wickramarathna, Professor Rohan Samarajeewa, President Counsiler Jagath Wickramanayake and Mr. Lalith Sumanasiri -Managing Director of Ogilvy Media.

During the discussion, the panel unanimously voiced concerns over the suitability of the Online Safety Bill, now law, for fostering a healthy Digital Marketing environment and supporting the growth of a robust digital economy. The consensus among these influential figures highlighted the need for amendments to better align the legislation with the dynamic nature of the Digital Marketing industry. 

MP Eran Wickramarathna remarked, “The current Online Safety Act poses challenges for the Digital Marketing industry, hindering its potential to contribute significantly to our digital economy. Amendments are crucial to address these concerns.”

The Digital Marketing Association of Sri Lanka remains committed to collaborating with the government to find solutions that facilitate a thriving Digital Marketing ecosystem, benefiting businesses, consumers, and the nation’s overall digital economy.

“We, at DMASL, firmly believe that amendments to the Online Safety Act are essential to address the specific challenges faced by the Digital Marketing industry in Sri Lanka. The current legislation, in its present form, may impede the industry’s ability to thrive and contribute significantly to our nation’s digital economy,” DMASL said. 

DMASL urges the government to consider revising the law to align it with the dynamic nature of the Digital Marketing sector, ensuring that it can operate efficiently and contribute substantially to the country’s digital growth. (NewsWire)

The post DMASL advocates amendments to Online Safety Bill appeared first on Newswire.

Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) has raised concerns over the government’s conduct concerning the recently passed Online Safety Bill. 

Issuing a statement, TISL said “it was appalled by the outrageous conduct of the Government, Parliament, Attorney General and the Speaker on the Bill.”

TISL further said it is concerned over the signing off on a version of the Online Safety Act that does not contain several of the amendments required by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. 

The Online Safety Bill was passed in the Parliament of Sri Lanka on January 24, 2024, with a majority of MPs supporting the bill, despite the Opposition claiming that the amendments proposed were not consistent with the Supreme Court’s determination.

The Online Safety Bill was published in the Sri Lankan Government Gazette in September 2023, after which the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka determined that several provisions of the Bill were not consistent with the Constitution.

Thereafter, in October, the government agreed to revise the Bill in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determinations and presented the revised Bill to Parliament in January. 

Key objectives of the bill include establishing the Online Safety Commission, making provisions to prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact in Sri Lanka, preventing the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes, making provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka, and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements of fact. (NewsWire)

The post Online Safety Bill : “Several SC amendments missing” appeared first on Newswire.

In a collective effort, numerous civil society organizations and prominent individuals in Sri Lanka have penned an open letter to the Speaker of the Parliament, Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena concerning the recently passed Online safety Bill.

The letter urgently requests the Speaker to refrain from endorsing the Online Safety Bill until the directives of the Supreme Court have been thoroughly adhered to.

Full Letter 

Request not to endorse the Online Safety Bill without verifying Supreme Court directives have been fully adhered to  

We, as civil society activists, firmly believe the Online Safety Bill which completely endangers freedom of expression should be rejected outright. As citizens holding the sovereignty of the country, we, the undersigned, express our strong objection to the hasty passage of the bill on 24 January in the parliament, sans discussion with any stakeholder, and ignoring the directives of the Supreme Court.

MPs of the opposition parties have pointed out that the bill was debated and passed in the parliament without the proper inclusion of amendments and guidelines directed by the Supreme Court. Those amendments and guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court after taking into consideration a record of 45 fundamental rights petitions challenging the draft bill.

We believe, that if what the opposition MPs point out had occurred during the passage of the bill, it clearly violates the Constitution, undermines the sovereignty of the people and has possibly caused contempt of court as well.

In this letter, we once again confirm that even if the bill is passed as an Act by the Parliament, we will not stop our fight against regulations that are stifling the right to freedom of expression. This letter is also our commitment to continue our fight against regulations that are going to be implemented despite our objections that not only impede our right to free expression but also cause possible harm to the economy.

It is clear that the government is attempting to make the Online Safety Bill into law urgently to counter the opposition against the government ahead of the forthcoming elections.

As the Speaker of Parliament who ensures parliamentary orders are followed, we believe it’s your responsibility to guarantee that the Supreme Court-directed amendments are incorporated into the Online Safety Bill before endorsing it.

Therefore, we, as citizen activists and citizens who respect democracy, request you not to sign your consent to the bill until you are satisfied that the orders and guidelines sent to you by the Supreme Court are fully incorporated into the bill.

Free Media Movement

Sri Lanka Working Journalists’ Association

Young Journalists’ Association of Sri Lanka

Media Law Forum

Law and Society Trust

Right to life human rights Center

National Cooperative Development Fund

Hashtag Generation

Association of Health Professionals

Sri Lanka Postal and Telecommunication Service Union

All Ceylon Management Service Officers’ Union

Democratic Government Service Trade Union

South Asia Free Media Association

Ceylon Teachers’ Union

Ceylon Trade Union Federation

United Postal Trade Union Front

Savisthri National Women’s Moment

Uva Wellassa Women’s Organization

Movement for the Defence of Democratic Rights (MDDR)

Free Media Movement Tarde Union (FMMTU)

Ceylon Teachers’ Union

Moment for Land and Agriculture Reform (MONLAR)

National Fisheries Solidarity Movement (NAFSO)

Shramabhimani Center

Dabidu Collective

Women’s Action for Social Justice (WASJ)

United Federation of Labour (UFL)

Federation of Media Employees Trade Unions (FMETU)

Muslim Media Forum

Jaffna Press Club

Tamil Women Journalists Association

Tamil Media Alliance

Transparency International Sri Lanka

Free Trade Zone Union

South Asian Women in Media Network- Sri Lanka

Ceylon Bank Employees Union (CBEU)

South Asian Free Media Association

People’s Commission of Women in Sri Lanka

The Voice of Truth

Stand Up Movement in Sri Lanka

Trade Union to Upliftment of Sri Lanka Railway

Freedom Trade Union Center (FTUC)

Prabha Abhilasha Network

People’s Alliance for Right to Land (PARL)

Voice of the plantation people organization (VoPP)

Sri Lanka All Telecommunication Employees’ Union

Unite – Trade Union and Mass Organization Collective

Media.LK

RED Organization

Nature Foundation

Media Pro-Tech

PEN Sri Lanka

National Movement for Social Justice

Standup Workers Union

Asian Media and Cultural Association

Women Center Sri Lanka

Protect Union

Human Rights Documentation Center (INFORM)

Citizens’ Collective

Vinividimu Organization

Search for Common Grounds

Institute for People Engagement and Networking (iPEN)

Father Sarath Iddamalgoda

Rev. Asiri P Perera – Retired Bishop

Prof Arjuna Pararkarama

Prof Liyanage Amarakeerthi

Prof Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri

Prof Vijaya Jayathilaka

Dr Ravindra kariyawasam

Dr Rathna Sri Wijesinghe

Dr Kalpa Rajapaksa

Senior Lecturer Anuruddha Pradeep Karnasuriya

Thusitha Siriwardena, Attorney at Law

D M Dissanayake, Attorney at Law

Journalist Seetha Ranjanee

Journalist Upali Kolambage

Journalist Ananda Dharmapriya Jayasekara

Journalist Thimbiriyagama Bandara

Journalist Saroj Pathirana

Journalist T M G Chandrasekara

Senior researcher Sarath Kellapatha

Journalist Tharindu Iranga Jayawardena

Journalist Sujeewa Senarath

Littérateur S Nandalal

Social Activist Jayani Abeysekara

Journalist Jayasiri Jayasekara

Journalist Prasad Poornimal

Journalist Shalika Wimalasena

Civil and Human Rights Activist Cyril Pathirage

Creativist Nandasiri Dhrmaratne

Dramatist and Civil Activist Roy Rodrigo

Journalist Indika Roshan Garusinghe

Journalist Chamara Sampath

Civil and Human Rights Activist Suranga Rupasinghe

Journalist Priyan R Wijebandara

Environmentalist Hemantha Withanage

Environmentalist Sajeewa Chamikara

Trade Unionist Chinthaka Bandara

Dramatist Ranasinghe Adhikari

Lyricist Sudath Gamini Bandara

Social Activist Thamara Dayani Heetimullage

Shrinath Perera, Attorney at Law

Journalist Nayanajeewa Bandara

K.W. Janaranjana, Attorney at Law

Journalist K. Sanjeewa

Journalist Lasantha Ruhunage

Journalist Sunil Jayasekara

Journalists Sakeef

Marine Engineer Kamal Wanniarachchi

Social Activist Manjula Gajanayake

Journalist Manjula Wediwardhana

Social Activist Udaya Kalupathirana

Economist Umesh Moramudali

Social Activist Sandaya Eknaligoda

Journalist Poddala Jayantha

Journalist Thushara Weerarathna

Journalist Jini Jayasekara

Journalist R. Yasiharan

Social Activist Saman Senevirathna

Tharushi

Dishara Attorney at Law

Social Activist Sujith Abeyewckreme

Social Activist Chameera Dedduwage

Freelance journalist Ravi Rathnaveil

The post Speaker requested not to endorse Online Safety Bill without verifying Supreme Court directives appeared first on Newswire.

Several foreign nations have raised concerns about Sri Lanka’s new ‘Online Safety Bill’ (OSB), which was passed in Parliament this week. 

Taking to ‘X’, US Ambassador Julie Chung said the United States remains concerned about the potential impact of Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Bill.

She pointed out that the Bill has been passed without incorporating important input from key stakeholders, including civil society and tech companies who say that this legislation threatens freedom of expression, innovation, and privacy.

“In addition to jeopardizing democratic values, vague and overly restrictive legislation can hinder investment and the development of a digital economy, undermining the economic growth that Sri Lanka needs. The U.S. urges Sri Lanka to prioritize transparency and ensure any legislation does not stifle the voices of its people,” she added. 

Meanwhile, the Australian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Paul Stephens said it is agreed that regulation of the internet is necessary, but how this is done is important. 

“Allowing space for freedom of expression, as well as innovation and development of a vibrant digital economy, is crucial to Sri Lanka’s economic growth and democracy.

“We encourage Sri Lanka to ensure the new Online Safety Act is implemented in accordance with international best practices and standards,” he said, taking to ‘X’.

Also taking to ‘X’, the Canadian High Commission in Sri Lanka said Canada shares the concerns that Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Act has the potential to harm economic recovery and restrict the legitimate discourse expected in a democratic society.

“To avoid this, any measures taken to address harmful content online must ensure protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression,” the Canadian High Commission added. 

The Online Safety Bill was passed in the Parliament of Sri Lanka on Wednesday (Jan 24) with a majority of MPs supporting the bill, despite the Opposition claiming that the amendments proposed were not consistent with the Supreme Court’s determination.

The Online Safety Bill was published in the Sri Lankan Government Gazette in September 2023.

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka thereafter, determined that the several Online Safety Bill provisions are not consistent with the Constitution.

In October, the government agreed to revise the Bill in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determinations announced on November 07, 2023.

Key objectives of the bill include establishing the Online Safety Commission, making provisions to prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact in Sri Lanka, preventing the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes, making provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka, and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements of fact. (NewsWire)

The post US, Australia & Canada raise concerns over Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Bill appeared first on Newswire.

A repressive new internet law that Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe is trying to rush through parliament this week would create broad and vague new speech-related offences punishable by lengthy prison terms, Internationa Rights Organization, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said.

In a statement, the Deputy Director of HRWs Asia Division, Meenakshi Ganguly said the law would seriously threaten the right to freedom of expression as Sri Lanka prepares for parliamentary and presidential elections later this year.

The proposed law, the Online Safety Bill, purportedly provides protections against online harassment, abuse, and fraud. Instead, it is mostly concerned with creating a new “Online Safety Commission,” appointed by the president, that can decide what online speech is “false” or “harmful,” remove content, restrict and prohibit internet access, and prosecute individuals and organizations.

Commission-appointed “experts” would be empowered to enter and search suspects’ premises. Offences under the law carry hefty fines and prison sentences of up to five years. The United Nations Human Rights Office said the law “could potentially criminalize nearly all forms of legitimate expression, creating an environment that has a chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

The Asia Internet Coalition, an industry body including tech giants such as Google, Apple, and Meta, has called the bill a “draconian system to stifle dissent” and warned it “could undermine the potential growth of Sri Lanka’s digital economy.”

Ganguly further said Sri Lanka is still reeling from an economic crisis partly caused by misgovernment and failures of accountability. In 2022, months-long protests demanding reform toppled the prime minister and president. Since coming to power that year, President Wickremesinghe has moved to stifle dissent.

Other repressive legislation before parliament includes a new broadcasting law, which the UN experts say could be used to “suppress dissenting voices,” and a counterterrorism law that “grants wide powers to the police – and to the military – to stop, question and search, and to arrest and detain people, with inadequate judicial oversight.”

According to the International Monetary Fund, which supports Sri Lanka’s economy, restrictions on civil society, including the “broad application of counter-terrorism rules,” already limited “oversight and monitoring of government actions,” contributing to “severe governance weaknesses and corruption vulnerabilities.”

Ganguly pointed out that Sri Lanka’s repressive laws have facilitated widespread human rights violations for decades and contributed to economic and political crises, adding that passing the Online Safety Bill would be a disastrous setback. (NewsWire)

The post Sri Lanka’s proposed Internet Law threatens upcoming elections – HRW appeared first on Newswire.

Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) MP Namal Rajapaksa has backed the government’s proposed Online Safety Bill.

Speaking to the media, MP Rajapaksa said the SLPP is of the view that social media must be regulated to a certain extent in Sri Lanka. 

“We must focus on protecting the privacy of individuals. Therefore, it is essential to implement laws in this regard,” he said. 

MP Rajapaksa further pointed out that any individual who takes accountability for the information, news or posts shared on social media has no reason to fear the Online Safety Bill.

The former minister also said that he expects all Parliamentarians, including Opposition MPs, will vote in support of the Bill.

The proposed Online Safety Bill is expected to be passed in Parliament tomorrow (Jan 24). (NewsWire)

The post Namal backs Online Safety Bill appeared first on Newswire.

A vote was held in Parliament today on whether or not to take up for debate the government’s proposed Online Safety Bill (OSB).

A total of 83 Parliamentarians voted in favour, while 50 MPs voted against taking up the Online Safety Bill for debate today. 

Accordingly, following the vote, the proposed Online Safety Bill will be taken up for debate in Parliament today. 

Earlier today, taking to ‘X’, Opposition MP Harsha de Silva alleged that Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena was trying to go ahead with the debate with 42 clauses to be amended. 

“This is the position of the #SriLanka government. Standing orders dictate that the Oversight Committee Report must be tabled, but no such report,” he said.

The Parliament was thereafter adjourned for Party Leaders to discuss whether or not to take up for debate the proposed Online Safety Bill.

“Almost all opposition parties in @ParliamentLK met Speaker now to urge him to postpone the proposed debate on #OnlineSafetyBill scheduled for later today (34/56 clauses unconstitutional),” MP de Silva said.

The Opposition MP further said that during the discussion the Opposition pointed out the grave consequences of the passage of this draconian legislation.

MP Harsha de Silva went on to note that the Speaker had, however, decided to proceed with a vote after failing to recognize his intervention to oppose the Bill.

“Speaker of #Parliament didn’t recognize me for my intervention to insist by passing this Bill objective of dealing with real crimes online will not be met as platforms will not comply at the very least without a safe harbour condition. Now vote to decide to proceed with debate or not,” he added. (NewsWire)

Speaker of #Parliament didn’t recognize me for my intervention to insist by passing this Bill objective of dealing with real crimes online will not be met as platforms will not comply at the very least without a safe harbor condition. Now vote to decide to proceed w debate or not pic.twitter.com/dVDcFNBdx6

— Harsha de Silva (@HarshadeSilvaMP) January 23, 2024

The post Opposition’s attempt to stop OSB bill debate defeated appeared first on Newswire.

The Opposition Party will oppose the Draft Online Safety Bill (OSB) currently under consideration by the Government of Sri Lanka, Leader of the Opposition and Samgi Jana Balawegay (SJB) MP Sajith Premadasa said. 

According to MP Premadasa, the decision had been taken following a discussion between media organizations, civil organizations, groups working for democracy, trade unions, etc. and several major parties of the Opposition on Thursday (Jan 18).

He further stated that the government has established a monopoly in the country by introducing such an anti-democratic Bill under the pretext of protecting the rights of children, mothers, common people and vulnerable sections of the country.

MP Premadasa accused the government of violating human rights and fundamental rights including freedom of speech, discussion, debate and information through this new legislation. 

Stating that the President has shown the country and the world that he is a democratic person, the MP said that, but through the implementation of this Bill, the image he imagined is proven to be a lie.

“Through this Bill, he and the members of the commission he appoints and the security forces he appoints can put pressure on the common people of this country at will. The President has resorted to a program to silence the people by making them afraid that they will go to jail if they speak,” he said. 

The Opposition Leader pointed out that if the president is a true democrat, as he claims to be, he should withdraw this Bill and engage in an enlightened and optimal discussion with all the stakeholders. (NewsWire)

The post Opposing Online Safety Bill: Opposition Leader meets Civil Society Orgs appeared first on Newswire.

The Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) has raised concerns about the Draft Online Safety Bill (OSB) currently under consideration by the Government of Sri Lanka.

Issuing a 13-point letter to Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles, the AIC advocates for extensive revisions and overhaul of the draft bill.

“While we appreciate the efforts made thus far with the industry, a more comprehensive and meaningful consultation is necessary to address the complexities and nuances associated with the Bill. We acknowledge that the legislative process is intricate, and deliberations are ongoing. However, it is crucial to ensure that the Bill is not only effective but also balanced, proportionate, and practicable in its scope and approach,” it said.

The AIC pointed out that the proposed legislation, in its present form, poses significant challenges that, if not addressed comprehensively, could undermine the potential growth of Sri Lanka’s digital economy. 

The AIC added that its submissions to the minister highlight various areas of concern from specific clauses ranging from regulatory independence and extraterritorial application to the overbroad definition of intermediaries, ambiguous terminology defining prohibited statements, divergence from international human rights and best practice standards, and more. (NewsWire)

The post Online Safety Bill: AIC raises 13 concerns in a letter to SL appeared first on Newswire.

Opposition MP Harsha de Silva says Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Bill will jeopardise ties with major platforms such as Meta, Google, and YouTube. 

Taking to ‘X’, MP de Silva said he strongly opposes the Government’s move to enact the Online Safety Bill.

“If passed, I pledge that a future @sjbsrilanka-led Govt will swiftly repeal controversial bill. We won’t jeopardize ties w/ major platforms like @Meta, @Google & @YouTube essential for #lka economic growth,” he warned.

MP de Silva further said that committed to true Online Safety, the SJB-led government will introduce a new law addressing issues like child porn and other serious online crimes with the collaboration of major platforms. 

“It’s crucial for the wellbeing of #SriLanka society. Let’s prioritize effective solutions over hasty decisions,” he added. 

Concerns have been raised by various parties, including the opposition, on the Online Safety Bill, claiming that it violates the fundamental rights of the public. 

The Online Safety Bill was published in the Sri Lankan Government Gazette in September 2023.

Key objectives of the bill include establishing the Online Safety Commission, making provisions to prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact in Sri Lanka, preventing the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes, making provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka, and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements of fact. 

In October last year, the Attorney General informed the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka that the government had decided to make certain amendments to the Online Safety Bill.

In December it was announced that the revised Online Safety Bill is scheduled to be tabled in Parliament in late January this year. (NewsWire)

The post Sri Lanka’s ties with Facebook, Google & YouTube : Harsha issues warning appeared first on Newswire.

By Jagath Liyanaarachchi

Online Safety Bill

According to the directive of the Minister of Public Security, Tiran Alas, the Online Safety Bill was published in the Gazette on 18-09-2023. On 2023-10-03, the bill was tabled in the Parliament for the first reading.

The Bill envisages the establishment of a Commission for the Safety of Online Systems, the banning of certain online communications, and the banning of fake online accounts, etc.

Social media activists, media organizations, lawyers’ organizations, and civil activists raised severe concerns over this bill. The government is accused of restricting the freedom of speech and expression, especially by the provisions of this bill and the critics claim that social media activists who criticize the government can be targeted by the provisions of this Act.

Supreme Court ruling

After the Bill was tabled in Parliament, 51 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Bill. After examining the petitions by a three-member bench of Supreme Court judges, according to Article 120 of the Constitution, the decision was communicated to the Speaker. The decision was announced by the Deputy Speaker in Parliament on 07-11-2023.

According to that decision, sections 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13,14, 15,16,17,18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,27,28,29, 30,31, 32, 36, 37, 42, 45, 53 and 56 can be approved as mentioned in the Bill, if passed by a special majority of two third including the absent Members of the Parliament, according to the provisions mentioned in Article 84(2) of the Constitution.

According to the amendments proposed by the Supreme Court in its decision, if the said articles are amended at the committee stage, this bill can be passed by a simple majority. The Supreme Court said that other provisions of the Bill are in line with the Constitution.

Alternative scenarios regarding the way forward of the Bill

Accordingly, there are several options before the government regarding the bill. They are

1. Passing the Bill as it is by a special two-thirds majority.
2. Incorporating the Supreme Court’s recommendations at the committee stage and passing the bill by a simple majority.
3. Amending the bill by incorporating amendments suggested by media activists and civil organizations at the committee stage.
4. Withdrawal of the Bill without going to a second reading.

Among these, the most likely option is to pass the Bill by a simple majority, incorporating the amendments recommended by the Supreme Court at the committee stage.

Limitations on adding amendments at committee time

There are two things that Parliament should consider when amending the Bill at the committee stage.

1. Incorporation of the amendments recommended by the Supreme Court. If these recommendations are not incorporated the bill must be passed by a special majority of two-thirds.
2. The Parliament has a legal obligation to act within the limitations set by Article 78(3) of the Constitution when amending the articles not mentioned in the Supreme Court decision. Those restrictions mean that any amendment made to a Bill in Parliament should not be outside the essence and principles of that bill.

Articles recommended by the Supreme Court to be amended

Supreme Court recommended amending 31 of the 56 articles to pass the Bill by a simple majority. The Parliament may not deviate from the Supreme Court’s decision when amending those articles at the committee stage. But Parliament may amend other articles at the committee stage within the limits of Article 78(3) of the Constitution.

Critics emphasized the independence of the commission, broadness of interpretations of offenses, powers of the commission, etc. related to the active provisions of the Bill. Supreme Court has recommended to amend almost all of these articles.

Other articles are related to general procedural matters and amending those articles brings no substantive change to the impact of this Act.

What can civil society do now?

1. Request the bill to be withdrawn and re-drafted after extensive discussion
2. Urging MPs to abstain from voting in favour of the bill
3. Intervening in making rules if the bill is passed

Importance of Drafting a new Bill

The current Bill was drafted without consultation with any of the stakeholders, and there was a lot of opposition to this bill from all parties, both locally as well as internationally.

Unofficial information also circulated that the bill would be withdrawn by the Minister in charge of the subject. Also, as discussed above, it is suggested that 31 of the 56 articles of the draft should be amended.

Therefore, the best option for the government is to withdraw this Bill with a plan to prepare a new draft. The best practice is to discuss this with the relevant stakeholders.

Through such an activity, both the government and the citizens have the opportunity to formulate a more positive law while getting confirmation about the legality of that law. And the possibility of getting international recognition is also available.

Jagath Liyanarachchi is an Attorney-at-Law who can be reached at jagathliyanarachchi@gmail.com.

Factum is an Asia Pacific-focused think tank on International Relations, Tech Cooperation, and Strategic Communications accessible via www.factum.lk.

The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the organization’s.

The post Factum Special Perspective: Online Safety Bill, Supreme Court Ruling, and Alternatives appeared first on Newswire.

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has determined that the Online Safety Bill or its provisions are not inconsistent with the Constitution.

The court further revealed that the Bill can be passed by a simple majority following committee-stage amendments on certain clauses.

The Supreme Court determination was informed to Parliament today by the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ajith Rajapakshe. 

The Online Safety Bill was published in the Sri Lankan Government Gazette in September 2023.

Key objectives of the bill include establishing the Online Safety Commission, making provisions to prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact in Sri Lanka, preventing the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes, making provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka, and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements of fact. 

Upon it being gazetted, at least 45 petitions were filed at the Supreme Court challenging the Bill, with many raising concerns that it violates the fundamental rights of the public.

In October this year, the Attorney General informed the Supreme Court that the government had decided to make certain amendments to the Online Safety Bill. (NewsWire)

The post Online Safety Bill: SC reveals opinion appeared first on Newswire.

The government has decided to make certain amendments to the Online Safety Bill, the Attorney General informed the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka today (Oct 18). 

The message was conveyed after the Supreme Court commenced hearing 45 petitions that had been filed challenging the Online Safety Bill.

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena also informed Parliament today that a total of 45 petitions have been filed at the Supreme Court challenging the Online Safety Bill. 

Concerns have been raised by various parties, including the opposition, on the Online Safety Bill, claiming that it violates the fundamental rights of the public. 

The Online Safety Bill was published in the Sri Lankan Government Gazette in September 2023.

Key objectives of the bill include establishing the Online Safety Commission, making provisions to prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact in Sri Lanka, preventing the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes, making provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka, and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements of fact. (NewsWire)

The post Online Safety Bill : Govt decides to make certain amendments appeared first on Newswire.

The government is dedicated to elevating Sri Lanka’s global standing by ensuring the public’s access to accurate information, drawing inspiration from the significance of the Media Development Authority Act of Singapore in their developmental journey, Chairman of the United National Party MP Wajira Abeywardena emphasized, commenting on Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Bill. 

MP Abeywardena highlighted that while everyone enjoys the freedom of social media, regulations will be introduced to deter its misuse for personal attacks or vengeful actions.

He further highlighted that the establishment of the Commission on the Safety of Online Systems will serve as an experimental platform for both journalists and citizens. 

The MP also noted that individuals spreading defamatory or false information through online systems will face legal consequences and the commission itself does not possess punitive authority.

MP Wajira Abeywardena expressed these views during a press conference held at the Presidential Media Centre on Monday (Oct 16).

Expressing his views further, MP Abeywardena said, “With the advancement of communication worldwide and in Sri Lanka, people have witnessed various outcomes. However, it’s clear that communication can also be used to mislead and insult citizens. Consequently, those responsible for social media platforms have been striving to establish regulations. In Sri Lanka, there is an ongoing debate about the necessity of such regulations.

“The landscape of electronic media in Sri Lanka has undergone significant changes since 1978. Initially, there was limited television coverage in the country. It was only with the establishment of ITN by Mr. Shan Wickremesinghe, the brother of the current President, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, that television expanded. However, it later came under government control. After 1978, the government introduced numerous radio and television channels to replace the sole radio station. The regulation of all television media was governed by the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Act, which lacked comprehensive press development provisions.

“In contrast, developed countries across the globe have implemented regulatory frameworks to ensure the accuracy of information and the responsible conduct of media outlets. For instance, the Info‑communications Media Development Authority Act of Singapore has played a pivotal role in Singapore’s development. Today, especially the younger generation faces considerable discomfort due to the messages disseminated through social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Tiktok, Instagram and Youtube. Instances of such platforms negatively impacting young lives, even to the point of suicide, highlight the urgent need for rules and regulations,” he said.

The MP further stressed that controlling the harmful aspects of information channels, such as Facebook, ensuring the dissemination of accurate information and enforcing laws against those spreading false information are vital for the progress of an educated and developing society.

“To strengthen Sri Lanka’s position in Asia and on the global stage, it is essential to enhance the role of the media. A crucial step in this direction would be for all media organizations in Sri Lanka to study the Media Act of Singapore. This act grants full authority to regulate broadcasting services, including the power to grant licenses, revoke them and impose penalties for disseminating inaccurate information. Such measures have contributed to the transformation of countries like Singapore into influential nations worldwide.

“Beyond the realm of politics, there is a pressing need to change the culture of spreading falsehoods in Sri Lankan politics. It’s vital to recognize that the media’s responsibility lies in revealing the essential truth, not concealing it.

“For instance, it’s imperative for journalists and citizens alike to understand that regulations aim to strengthen the media, not control it. Providing accurate information is a valuable process that benefits the entire nation. To reinforce this, all institutions must unite, offering ideas, suggestions and methods to combat false statements in the media.

“Recent actions by our neighbouring country, India, which banned 58 mobile phone applications, including Tiktok, illustrate the importance of such regulations. Politicians often reference countries like India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and China as examples of advanced nations, yet they tend to overlook the regulations that underpin their development. In contrast, these countries have comprehensive legal systems and constitutions that have established the necessary rules and regulations to enable them to stand strong on the world stage. As Sri Lankans, it is vital to bring order to the currently disorganized media culture to foster its development and elevate the nation’s intelligence,” he said.

MP Abeywarden said that one of the primary objectives of the new Broadcasting Regulatory Commission (BRC) bill and the Online Safety Bill is to prevent defamation, false accusations and the destruction of individuals. 

“It is important to note that these regulations aim to create a strong presence for Sri Lanka, both domestically and internationally. The established commission cannot administer punishments; this authority lies with the Magistrate Court or other relevant courts. These new rules and regulations will not only produce responsible journalists but also responsible citizens. They also contribute to the reduction of animosity between nations and affirm the people’s right to access the truth,” he added. (NewsWire)

The post Govt explains why Online Safety Bill is important appeared first on Newswire.

The UN Human Rights Office has raised serious concerns over two bills under consideration in the Sri Lankan Parliament – the revised Anti-Terrorism Bill and the Online Safety Bill.

Issuing a statement, the UN Human Rights Office said the bills give the authorities a range of expansive powers and can also impose restrictions on human rights, not in line with international human rights law.

The Anti-Terrorism Bill is intended to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has long been of concern to the UN human rights mechanisms. While some positive revisions have been made in the draft, including the removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment, there are still major concerns about the scope and discriminatory effects of many provisions in the revised draft.

Restrictions to the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are very likely to fail to meet requirements of necessity and proportionality, it said.

The UN Human Rights Office further said the Bill still includes an overly broad definition of terrorism and grants wide powers to the police – and to the military – to stop, question and search, and to arrest and detain people, with inadequate judicial oversight. 

Other issues remain over the imposition of curfews, restriction orders and the designation of prohibited places, all of which raise concerns about the scope of powers granted to the executive without sufficient checks and balances, it said.

With respect to the Online Safety Bill, the UN Human Rights Office said it believes it will severely regulate and restrict online communication, including by the general public and will give authorities unfettered discretion to label and restrict expressions they disagree with as “false statements”.

Many sections of the Bill contain vaguely defined terms and definitions of offences which leave significant room for arbitrary and subjective interpretation and could potentially criminalize nearly all forms of legitimate expression, creating an environment that has a chilling effect on freedom of expression, it said.

The UN Human Rights Office has urged the Government to undertake further meaningful consultation with civil society and UN independent experts and to make substantial revisions to the draft laws in order to bring them into full compliance with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations. (NewsWire)

The post UN concerned over two draft laws in Sri Lanka appeared first on Newswire.