The Online Safety Bill came into effect from (1) of February when the speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena signed the certificate on the online safety Bill.
This comes into force as the Online Safety Bill No. 9 of 2024. This bill was passed by majority vote in Parliament on 24th.
Many requests were raised not to sign the draft
As a collective effort regarding the online safety bill recently passed in Parliament, many civil organizations and leading activists in Sri Lanka have sent an open letter to Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.
Referring to the letter, they had requested the Speaker to refrain from approving the Online Safety Bill until the orders of the Supreme Court are followed to the letter.
In addition, several political parties also requested the speaker to refrain from signing this draft. In the midst of such requests, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena has applied his certification by enforcing the draft on this online safety bill .
The Online Safety Bill (January 24) was passed by a majority vote in Parliament.
There were 108 votes in favor and 62 votes against.
The Minister of Public Security, Tiran Allas recently presented the draft of the online safety bill to the Parliament for the first reading, in a background where many parties have strongly objected to this bill.
Basically under this bill
Establishment of Commission on Security of Online Systems
Provision to prohibit the online communication of certain statements about an event in Sri Lanka
Prevention of use of online accounts and fake online accounts for prohibited purposes
Provision for identification and publication of online sites used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka
The facts are intended to prevent the provision of money and other assistance to communicate false statements about an event.
What is ‘misconstrued’ by the Bill?
The Online safety Bill drafted by the government has misconstrued several online activities.
Accordingly,
Communicating false statements about an incident in Sri Lanka
Making defamatory false statements
Vain incitement to commit mutiny by false statements
Disturbing a religious meeting by making false statements
Communicating a false statement with the express intention of hurting religious feelings
Communicating a blatantly and maliciously false statement to offend religious feelings
Fraud by false communication through online means
Fraud by impersonation
Intentionally insulting by making a false statement with intent to provoke a breach of the peace
Circulating a false statement with intent to incite sedition or offense against the Government etc.
Communicating Statements of Incidents of Harassment
Child abuse
Creating or misusing ‘bots’ to commit offences
Failure to comply with an order of the commission is termed a misdemeanor under this Act.
What are the penalties?
A person who has committed an offense under this act may be imprisoned or fined and subjected to both punishments.
One of the issues raised by the parties opposing this bill is that there is a possibility of punishing online service providers through this bill, and there is a risk of disrupting service provision.
Also, another issue raised by the critics is that there is a possibility of problems through this act for individuals engaged in business through social media.
The parties opposing this draft point out the fact that the President has the power to appoint all the members of the relevant commission affects the independence of the commission.
They also point out that there is a risk of affecting the freedom of speech and expression by allowing this commission to determine the truth and falsity of the statement.
Approval of Sectoral Monitoring Committee
Subject to the amendments proposed by the Supreme Court, the online safety bill has received the approval of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Media, Youth, Heritage and Modern Citizen.
The approval for this was obtained when the sectoral supervision Committee on Media, Youth, Heritage and Modern Citizen met in Parliament headed by of Parliamentary Minister Lalith Warankumara (January 22).
Officials representing the Ministry of Public Security, the Attorney General’s Department, the Legal Draft Department, the Sri Lanka Police and the National Secretariat of Non-Governmental Organizations participated in this meeting.
MPs Gayantha Karunathilake, Iran Wickramaratne and Chandima Weerakkodi pointed out to the committee that more time is needed to study the amended the bill and that policy matters should be amended in this regard, they pointed out that it is important to get more time without passing this bill quickly in the parliament.
Azgar Nuhman
