The proposed Bill registered in Nepal’s Parliament last week aims at making the operation and use of social media disciplined, safe, and systematic; experts say vague and far-reaching provisions, which are open to interpretation, could be used by authorities as a tool to silence dissent and criticism.
The K. P. Sharma Oli government’s move to enact new laws in Nepal to regulate social media has met with fierce criticism, with free speech advocates warning of serious implications for freedom of expression in the country.
Communications and Information Technology Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung registered the “Bill Related to Operation, Use, and Regulation of Social Media in Nepal” in the Upper House of the Federal Parliament on January 28. The proposed Bill aims at making the operation and use of social media sites disciplined, safe, and systematic. It also seeks to regulate them by holding operators and users responsible and accountable “to promote social harmony and cultural tolerance.”
In its objective, the Bill states that there will be a significant improvement in information safety and the privacy of personal details once the new laws are enacted and implemented. The Bill is also necessary for social media companies to register in Nepal, as the country lacks specific laws to that effect, the government has argued.
But experts say that although the need for regulating social media platforms cannot be dismissed, some of the provisions are so vague and convoluted that the authorities could use them as a tool to silence critics and dissent.
Flawed understanding
Tara Nath Dahal, director of Freedom Forum, an organisation working for free speech and the promotion of democracy, says the Bill is flawed from the outset.
“This Bill ostensibly claims to regulate social media, but its provisions are laid out in such a way that it attempts to control everything on the Internet,” said Mr. Dahal.
“The Bill even lacks the clarity about what constitutes social media and what qualifies as traditional media. It has been introduced without a proper understanding of the digital ecosystem and how it functions.” According to Mr. Dahal, what the government needed to do was introduce an integrated Bill that could address issues related to the information technology industry, data protection, security, and other digital problems.
Experts and analysts agree on the need to regulate social media platforms in light of rising misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, the proliferation of misleading content, and other online threats. However, they argue that the provisions have been drafted in such a way that the primary intent seems to be suppressing free speech and the media.
Shiva Gaunle, editor ofonlinekhabar.com, an online media outlet, says that while it may look innocuous at first glance, issues like sovereignty and national integrity are abstract. “The generalised terms in the Bill are open to interpretation,” said Mr. Gaunle. “If the authorities deem a post or comment related to these matters inappropriate, the user can be criminally charged. There are several other provisions that are worded vaguely. Laws should be clear, not confusing.”
The Bill comes at a time when public frustration with Nepali politicians is growing due to their failures on various fronts. With the proliferation of the Internet, people now have easy access to social media, which they have been using as a tool to express their anger or question those in power. This has greatly inconvenienced the political elite, as is evident in their public remarks.
And, this is not the first time the government has attempted to silence dissent in Nepal. In November 2023, the Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ government banned TikTok, claiming it was spreading indecency in society. In 2019, the government tabled the Information Technology Management Bill with similar convoluted language, laying excessive stress on terms like decency and morality — provisions that could be interpreted however the authorities deemed fit. After fierce criticism, the Bill failed to become law.
The latest Bill continues past efforts to inconvenience users and ultimately instill fear in those who criticise, says Ujjwal Acharya, a researcher at the Centre for Media Research, Nepal.
“On one hand, it appears to over-regulate social media companies, making it difficult for them to register in Nepal,” said Mr. Acharya. “On the other hand, the Bill’s provisions clearly aim to regulate users, not social media platforms. The purpose and objective do not align.”
If the Bill is passed by both houses of Parliament in its current form, analysts say, it will shrink the scope of media freedom by forcing them to exercise self-censorship, while users will have to live in constant fear.
The Bill also envisions the establishment of a new department to “regulate” content.
“What appears on social media is not something that a government entity should be regulating,” said Mr. Dahal. “What is even more troubling is that the Bill envisions a government entity whose directives must be followed by autonomous institutions like the Nepal Telecom Authority and the Press Council.”
Amid widespread criticism, some leaders from the Nepali Congress, Mr. Oli’s coalition partner, have said that the Bill would be revised before being passed into law.
Mr. Acharya said there is no alternative to holding broader consultations before passing the Bill, as a repressive law could muzzle the press, which has played an important role in building a democratic and informed society.
“Why write such a lengthy Bill when you can simply state that action would be initiated as per the [government] directive?”, Mr. Acharya said, taking a potshot at the Bill’s weirdly worded provisions.
