Protecting rights

Cabinet this week gave approval for the Government to formulate stronger legislation to control hate speech on social media as a response to the Digana clashes but moderate stakeholders would be wary of what that would entail and what impact it would have on legitimate free speech. 

The Cabinet paper submitted by Justice Minister Thalatha Athukorala outlined intentions to address “surreptitious efforts to create social unrest and religious and communal disharmony” and “unfair” use of social media. How these terms are defined and what means are used to achieve these ends will need close monitoring during the formulation and passing of this legislation.   

Sri Lanka already has legislation which covers hate speech, which has not been implemented in an adequate and timely manner in the past. The advent of extremist groups in Sri Lanka is not a new phenomenon, it has been around for years and a sizeable amount of hate speech actually takes place offline in public spaces. 

This is all the more challenging because some purveyors of hate speech are also prominent community members such as Buddhist monks, and the Government has avoided tackling the issue head on. In fact the tiptoeing around this issue continues to sap the Government of credibility. Even if stronger legislation is passed, moderate and progressive members of society would be concerned about whether the law would be consistently and universally implemented. 

Fresh legislation to curb hate speech on social media cannot exist without a strong monitoring system, which will likely have to be powered by State departments and law enforcement. The danger here is that in such an event, unless an independent body is established, legitimate free speech would also be flagged along with hate speech. This is infringing on the legitimate rights of citizens and their right to censure the Government that they voted into power. 

The global concern, which is relevant to Sri Lanka as well, is as Government begins to introduce legislation to control social media they can also hoover up legitimate dissent and criticism of the Government.  It is for precisely this reason that satire and even comedy should be allowed to be a strong component of political freedom not to mention conventional mainstream and online media. A democracy without free speech automatically becomes a deeply flawed one and unworthy of the public which voted this Government into power in 2015. 

While the larger discourse on protecting privacy on social media platforms should continue a parallel discourse on hate speech should also evolve with the involvement of all stakeholders. It is hoped that the Sri Lankan Government dedicates itself to building a discourse and listening to all sides of the issue and makes a genuine effort to formulate progressive legal safeguards.

Cracking down on hate speech is an important part of the ‘Yahapalanaya’ mandate and there are many ways that this can be accomplished without harming free speech. However, a clear policy has to be made and Government bodies, including the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) and other stakeholders, have to understand that their responsibility is twofold: to stamp out hate speech but maintain free speech. If Sri Lanka truly wants to become a mature democracy, then it has to stop seeing dissent as disloyalty.