South Asia continues to grapple with the complex challenge of internet censorship. As governments deploy measures to control online content and restrict connectivity, concerns surrounding digital freedom have grown.
This comparative analysis sheds light on the nuanced landscape of internet censorship in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, examining key incidents, government actions, and the far-reaching consequences on the digital realms of both nations.
Political Context and Suppression of Protests
In recent times, the global landscape has witnessed a concerning trend of declining internet freedom, notably exemplified in the cases of Sri Lanka and Pakistan, where the suppression of protests has been closely intertwined with the imposition of internet censorship.
Sri Lanka experienced a marked in internet freedom during the protests that erupted in March 2022, triggered by the government’s mishandling of an economic crisis. Then-president Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government restricted the Aragalaya movement, which advocated for political reforms, by imposing a 16-hour blocks on various social media platforms.
This suppression also involved the arrest of online activists and journalists, accompanied by the introduction of new criminal penalties aimed at controlling the dissemination of what the government deemed to be false information.
Similarly, Pakistan has a history of grappling with internet censorship, dating back to 2012, when the government-initiated efforts to establish a national-level URL filtering system. Over the subsequent years, the country experienced intermittent bans on major social media platforms, often driven by concerns related to blasphemous content and political protests.
Notably, YouTube became a focal point of restrictions. The government’s assertive control over internet infrastructure and its engagement in legal battles over website censorship underscore the intricate intersection of politics and the digital realm.
These instances underscore a broader global challenge where governments, in response to political unrest and protests, are increasingly resorting to the curtailment of internet freedom as a means of stifling dissent. The suppression of online platforms, the arrests of activists and journalists, and the introduction of stringent legal measures all highlight the growing trend of using internet censorship as a tool for political control.
As the digital space continues to play a pivotal role in shaping political narratives and mobilizing public opinion, the delicate balance between governmental authority and the preservation of fundamental freedoms remains a critical issue on the global stage.
The Regulatory Landscape and Legal Framework for Internet Censorship in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka, a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental right. Despite constitutional provisions and international obligations, challenges arise in balancing this freedom with concerns related to national security, public order, and the prevention of discrimination, especially in times of internet censorship.
Under Article 19 of the ICCPR, freedom of expression encompasses the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any means. Nevertheless, laws can impose restrictions on this right if they are provided by law and deemed necessary to protect rights or reputations, national security, public order, public health, or morals.
These standards equally apply to online expressions. The constitutional provisions outlined in Article 14(1) of the Sri Lankan Constitution significantly impact the landscape of internet censorship in the country.
While the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it also allows for restrictions in several areas, including national security, public order, and the rights and freedoms of others. This creates a framework within which the government can justify and enforce measures to regulate online content.
The Police Ordinance grants the police powers to control situations threatening public peace and order. Section 98 of the Ordinance criminalizes spreading false reports to create panic. This provision, potentially applicable to false reports on social media, addresses threats to public order. Limited information is available on its use for arrests or charges.
