As we observe the World Day Against Cyber Censorship on March 12, it is imperative to scrutinise legislative measures that, under the guise of promoting online safety, in effect suppress freedom of expression.
In Sri Lanka, the enactment of the Online Safety Act (OSA) on February 1, 2024, represented a profound assault on democratic principles and civil liberties. While the government purports that the Act aims to combat cybercrime, including data theft, child abuse and online fraud, a closer examination reveals that it serves as a tool for the state to stifle dissent and control the digital narrative.
The Online Safety Act (OSA): A Mechanism for Repression
The OSA establishes the Online Safety Commission, a five-member body appointed solely at the discretion of the President, without the requirement for external oversight or approval. This Commission possesses expansive powers to determine what constitutes “prohibited statements” and can mandate the removal of such content. Violations can result in severe penalties, including fines and imprisonment of up to twenty years. Moreover, the Act holds social media platforms accountable for content deemed illegal by the Commission, compelling them to comply with government directives or face punitive measures.
Targeting Journalists and Activists
The implementation of the OSA has already caused alarm among journalists and activists in Sri Lanka. The law’s vague and overbroad definitions of offences, such as “prohibited statements”, grant the Commission discretionary power that can be exploited to target individuals expressing dissenting views. This environment fosters self-censorship, as media professionals may avoid covering sensitive topics to evade potential repercussions. The Act’s potential to criminalise a wide range of online expressions deters individuals from voicing criticisms against the government, thereby weakening democratic discourse.
Case Study: Hiru Media Network vs. Newscenter
A notable example of the OSA’s application is the case of Hiru Media Network vs. Newscenter in January 2025. Hiru Media Network filed a legal case against Newscenter for broadcasting defamatory comments. The Kaduwela Magistrate’s Court issued a conditional order under the OSA, halting further airing of the broadcasts. This case marked a significant application of the Act to address allegedly defamatory content in the media, highlighting its potential to suppress critical reporting.
– Suppression of Dissent: The Act’s potential to criminalise a wide range of online expressions can deter individuals from voicing criticisms against the government, thereby weakening democratic discourse.
–Erosion of Media Freedom: Journalists may practise self-censorship to avoid punitive measures, leading to a less informed public and diminished accountability of those in power.
–Concentration of Power: The President’s authority to appoint members of the Online Safety Commission without external oversight raises concerns about the potential for the abuse of power and the lack of checks and balances.
–Threats to Privacy and Anonymity: The OSA not only restricts free speech but also compromises digital privacy, granting authorities broad surveillance powers to monitor online activity, track individuals, and demand user data from social media platforms. This disproportionately affects at-risk groups such as human rights defenders, journalists, opposition figures, and marginalised communities, whose anonymity is crucial for their safety. For example, LGBTQ+ individuals—who already face legal and social discrimination—could be particularly vulnerable, as the law may be used to censor advocacy, dismantle support networks, and expose individuals to harassment or legal repercussions. By creating an environment where expressing one’s identity or advocating for rights online becomes dangerous, the OSA reinforces systemic discrimination and suppresses voices that rely on digital spaces for safety and solidarity.
Call to Action
To the Sri Lankan Government:
–Repeal the Online Safety Act Immediately: This law has no place in a democracy and poses a significant threat to freedom of expression.
–End the Persecution of Journalists, Activists, and Citizens: Cease using legal mechanisms to silence dissent and suppress critical voices.
–Ensure True Online Safety, Not State-Controlled Censorship: Develop measures that protect citizens from genuine online harms without infringing upon fundamental rights.
To our Supporters:
–Do Not Be Silent: Speak out against this law before it is too late.
–Support Independent Journalism and Human Rights Organisations: They are the frontline defenders of free speech and democracy.
–Demand Accountability: Hold leaders responsible for their attacks on democratic principles and civil liberties.
If the Online Safety Act remains unchallenged, it will become the foundation for further repression, deeper fear and a Sri Lanka where speaking the truth is a crime. We should resist, fight back, and reclaim our right to free expression.
Silencing Dissent: The Online Safety Act and the Erosion of Free Speech in Sri Lanka
As we observe the World Day Against Cyber Censorship on March 12, it is imperative to scrutinise legislative measures that, under the guise of promoting online safety, in effect suppress freedom of expression.
In Sri Lanka, the enactment of the Online Safety Act (OSA) on February 1, 2024, represented a profound assault on democratic principles and civil liberties. While the government purports that the Act aims to combat cybercrime, including data theft, child abuse and online fraud, a closer examination reveals that it serves as a tool for the state to stifle dissent and control the digital narrative.
The Online Safety Act (OSA): A Mechanism for Repression
The OSA establishes the Online Safety Commission, a five-member body appointed solely at the discretion of the President, without the requirement for external oversight or approval. This Commission possesses expansive powers to determine what constitutes “prohibited statements” and can mandate the removal of such content. Violations can result in severe penalties, including fines and imprisonment of up to twenty years. Moreover, the Act holds social media platforms accountable for content deemed illegal by the Commission, compelling them to comply with government directives or face punitive measures.
Targeting Journalists and Activists
The implementation of the OSA has already caused alarm among journalists and activists in Sri Lanka. The law’s vague and overbroad definitions of offences, such as “prohibited statements”, grant the Commission discretionary power that can be exploited to target individuals expressing dissenting views. This environment fosters self-censorship, as media professionals may avoid covering sensitive topics to evade potential repercussions. The Act’s potential to criminalise a wide range of online expressions deters individuals from voicing criticisms against the government, thereby weakening democratic discourse.
Case Study: Hiru Media Network vs. Newscenter
A notable example of the OSA’s application is the case of Hiru Media Network vs. Newscenter in January 2025. Hiru Media Network filed a legal case against Newscenter for broadcasting defamatory comments. The Kaduwela Magistrate’s Court issued a conditional order under the OSA, halting further airing of the broadcasts. This case marked a significant application of the Act to address allegedly defamatory content in the media, highlighting its potential to suppress critical reporting.
Implications for Democracy
The OSA’s broad provisions have significant implications for democracy in Sri Lanka:
– Suppression of Dissent: The Act’s potential to criminalise a wide range of online expressions can deter individuals from voicing criticisms against the government, thereby weakening democratic discourse.
–Erosion of Media Freedom: Journalists may practise self-censorship to avoid punitive measures, leading to a less informed public and diminished accountability of those in power.
–Concentration of Power: The President’s authority to appoint members of the Online Safety Commission without external oversight raises concerns about the potential for the abuse of power and the lack of checks and balances.
–Threats to Privacy and Anonymity: The OSA not only restricts free speech but also compromises digital privacy, granting authorities broad surveillance powers to monitor online activity, track individuals, and demand user data from social media platforms. This disproportionately affects at-risk groups such as human rights defenders, journalists, opposition figures, and marginalised communities, whose anonymity is crucial for their safety. For example, LGBTQ+ individuals—who already face legal and social discrimination—could be particularly vulnerable, as the law may be used to censor advocacy, dismantle support networks, and expose individuals to harassment or legal repercussions. By creating an environment where expressing one’s identity or advocating for rights online becomes dangerous, the OSA reinforces systemic discrimination and suppresses voices that rely on digital spaces for safety and solidarity.
Call to Action
To the Sri Lankan Government:
–Repeal the Online Safety Act Immediately: This law has no place in a democracy and poses a significant threat to freedom of expression.
–End the Persecution of Journalists, Activists, and Citizens: Cease using legal mechanisms to silence dissent and suppress critical voices.
–Ensure True Online Safety, Not State-Controlled Censorship: Develop measures that protect citizens from genuine online harms without infringing upon fundamental rights.
To our Supporters:
–Do Not Be Silent: Speak out against this law before it is too late.
–Support Independent Journalism and Human Rights Organisations: They are the frontline defenders of free speech and democracy.
–Demand Accountability: Hold leaders responsible for their attacks on democratic principles and civil liberties.
If the Online Safety Act remains unchallenged, it will become the foundation for further repression, deeper fear and a Sri Lanka where speaking the truth is a crime. We should resist, fight back, and reclaim our right to free expression.
Recent Posts
Exhuming the Truth: Sri Lanka’s Mass Graves and the Search for the Disappeared
August 26, 202643 Years Since Black July: The Accountability Gap Revisited
July 20, 2026From Welikada to Negombo: four decades of impunity in Sri Lanka’s prisons
July 13, 2026Archives
Categories