Of 225 parliamentarians who attended the session, 108 voted in favour of the controversial legislation while 62 voted against following a two-day debate, as the government pushed for a swift approval of the bill.
As Houthis target ‘Israel-linked’ ships, Sri Lankans in Yemen fear reprisal
As Houthis target ‘Israel-linked’ ships, Sri Lankans in Yemen fear reprisal
A five-member Online Safety Council is to be established under the law, with the power to penalise offenders for online safety violations. This includes up to 500,000 Sri Lankan rupees (US$1,560) in fines or a maximum of five years in jail for those who post material deemed by the council as illegal. The council will also hold social media giants such as Google, Facebook and X liable for such content posted on their platforms.
The approved legislation remains unavailable for public scrutiny. Many rights groups are concerned about the vaguely worded definitions of offences under the new law, the wide powers given to the regulatory body, and limited consultations over the matter.
Speaking to This Week In Asia, Hana Ibrahim, secretary of the Free Media Movement of Sri Lanka argued the law could be weaponised to take action against those posting content against the government.
“[This law could be used] to sort of instil a sense of fear in the others, [the government’s] ultimate aim is self-censorship,” Ibrahim said.
The legislation was approved ahead of the country’s presidential and parliamentary elections, which are expected to be held later this year or early next year. It could have serious implications during the election season by enabling its abuse by people in power since the laws would restrict the sharing of critical information, Ibrahim said.
Sri Lanka’s Chinese ship ban shows limits of small nations in big-power rivalry
Sri Lanka’s Chinese ship ban shows limits of small nations in big-power rivalry
Bhavani Fonseka, a lawyer and a senior researcher for the Centre for Policy Alternatives in Sri Lanka, said the law comes at a time when people are becoming much more assertive in pushing back the government on certain policies. The Online Safety Act will basically “shut down spaces of debate and dissent”, she added.
Ashwini Natesan, a specialist on technology law, said that while there is a need to regulate online harms, it should be done in a manner that does not lead to a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
In a letter to the government before the parliamentary debate, 60 rights groups from around the world called for the bill to be withdrawn and for wider consultations on the matter. It expressed concerns about the “closed door” nature of the legislative process.
During the bill’s introduction, Sri Lankan Public Security Minister Tiran Alles told parliament that the bill seeks to address online offences such as sexual abuse and financial scams, as well as to safeguard national security. Alles assured that the law would not be used to “suppress the media or the opposition”.
In September last year, the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) comprising global platforms such as Google, Yahoo, Meta and X called the proposed law a “draconian system to stifle dissent and Sri Lankans’ rights to expression”. AIC also invited the government to participate in consultations with stakeholders in developing the legal provisions.
In a speech on Tuesday, Alles said that the government had consulted AIC since November. AIC refuted the minister’s comments on Wednesday, saying in a statement that the coalition was not “privy to proposed amendments to the bill”.
“We unequivocally stand by our position that the Online Safety Bill, in its current form, is unworkable and would undermine potential growth and foreign direct investment into Sri Lanka’s digital economy. We firmly believe that for the Bill to align with global best practices, extensive revisions are imperative,” the statement said.
“This sends the message that this present government has no space and no appetite for any such vocal active citizen mobilisation,” she said.