Banning bane

The news that five websites of an allegedly dubious nature have been banned in effect was followed by the Government’s rationale for its action, of which the Media Minister is the latest chorus bearer.

The reasoning is that a plethora of unregulated websites had allegedly tarnished the good image of Sri Lanka, that some of these scurrilous online content providers had heaped calumny on a cross section of Sri Lankan society and that regulation in the shape and form of a code of conduct and ethics was necessary with immediate effect.

The justification of the ill-argued statement by Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella is that it is impossible to find the owners of the websites and individually take legal action against them; therefore blanket banning is the only recourse.

The stated intention of the relevant authorities that codes of ethics and conduct are the need of the hour for print, online and electronic media fails to take into account that at least two of these three spheres are already subject to self-regulation by industry players themselves.

The State for its part failed to advise the public or the media concerned how the Government means to regulate the news content of recalcitrant websites. Nor has there been any clear statement made as to the specific laws, rules, or regulations that the web portals in question contravened. In the absence of such specifications, the State’s initiatives have been interpreted by the media and the political opposition as yet another attempt by the Government to censor – and not merely control or regulate – news organisations inimical to its worldview.

The surmise that the State intends to censor a panoply of media outlets is lent credence by the State’s intention to permit these web portals to resume operations after being subject to stringent regulatory measures, especially as the regulations per se have not been specified.

There is little or no precedent for the formal or standardised regulation of online news content in this country, with the exception that individual operators have been banned or blocked from time to time on a case by case basis. An extreme form of censorship practised by detractors of the freedom of expression has been physical assault or injury to persons or damage to property belonging to or associated with these media outlets.

The US and the European Union also issued statements on the banning with the latter saying “citizens have the right to access all information provided by the media and to make their own judgements and to formulate opinions independently. The EU Heads of Mission call on the Sri Lankan authorities to ensure that the rights of the free media are respected.”

“Once more, in the face of the State’s initiatives to tilt the playing field in its favour, both the political opposition and the media have failed to identify the pertinent issues and grapple with the Government in a principled manner – preferring instead to lower the bar as regards the debate by dealing with the issues at an emotive or rhetorical level. This has possibly strengthened the hand of the State in proceeding with impunity to press its diverse agendas,” said media research organisation Verite.

It adds that the one conclusion arising from the two issues analysed above is that the State’s patrimonial approach to the political, socioeconomic, and cultural life of the country is increasingly becoming the accepted – and also largely unquestioned or meaningfully critiqued – norm.