Nepal’s Proposed Social Media Bill: A Threat to Freedom of Expression and Democratic Progress
Nepal’s burgeoning democracy faces a potential setback with the proposed "Bill Related to Operation, Use, and Regulation of Social Media in Nepal." Introduced in January 2024, this bill, while ostensibly aimed at promoting responsible online behavior, raises serious concerns about its potential to stifle freedom of expression and curtail the very democratic principles it claims to uphold. The bill’s vague language and sweeping provisions grant the government excessive power to control online discourse, potentially criminalizing legitimate criticism and dissenting opinions. This raises the alarming prospect of a future where political engagement is suppressed, and the voices of ordinary citizens, particularly young people and women, are silenced.
The recent rise of young political leaders like Balendra Shah and Sunita Dangol, who leveraged social media to connect with voters and challenge established political norms, underscores the transformative power of these platforms. Their success stories highlight how digital spaces have become crucial for political participation, particularly for marginalized groups and emerging leaders. The proposed bill threatens to dismantle this progress by placing severe restrictions on online speech and creating a climate of fear and self-censorship. Had this bill been in effect during the last local elections, it is questionable whether these individuals could have mobilized public support and achieved their electoral victories. The bill, therefore, poses a direct threat to the future of inclusive and participatory democracy in Nepal.
The bill’s most contentious provisions include Section 18, which criminalizes online speech deemed harmful to "national interests" or likely to incite hatred. The vague definition of "bad intentions" within this section leaves it open to selective and arbitrary enforcement, potentially targeting activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens who express dissenting views. Sections 21, 22, and 23 further restrict online expression by criminalizing activities such as "trolling," "negative comments," and the dissemination of "false information." These broadly defined offenses could be easily misused to silence critical voices and suppress legitimate political discourse. The potential chilling effect of these provisions could deter individuals from engaging in online discussions about important social and political issues, ultimately undermining the very foundations of a vibrant democracy.
The chilling effect of this proposed legislation extends beyond individual citizens to encompass broader social movements and campaigns. The bill’s restrictive measures could have significantly hampered the momentum of vital initiatives such as Sumana Shrestha’s anti-corruption campaign or the advocacy efforts surrounding the Niramla Pant case. These examples demonstrate how social media has become an essential tool for mobilizing public support, raising awareness about critical issues, and holding those in power accountable. By curtailing online activism, the bill threatens to erode the very fabric of civil society and impede progress on crucial social and political reforms.
The bill’s provisions also grant the government sweeping powers to monitor and control online content, raising serious concerns about surveillance and censorship. Section 20(1) prohibits the sharing of "secret information," potentially hindering investigative journalism and whistleblowing activities that are essential for exposing corruption and holding the powerful accountable. The proposed "Quick Response Team," empowered to take action against social media users, further strengthens the government’s control over online spaces, creating a climate of fear and self-censorship. These measures not only restrict freedom of expression but also undermine transparency and accountability, essential pillars of a healthy democracy.
The proposed social media bill presents a significant setback for women and young people, two groups who have increasingly utilized digital platforms to amplify their voices and advocate for their rights. Women activists, who often face online harassment and intimidation, are particularly vulnerable to the bill’s restrictive provisions. The bill’s vague language and broad definitions could be used to silence their voices and stifle their efforts to promote gender equality and challenge patriarchal norms. Similarly, young leaders, who have leveraged social media to bypass traditional political gatekeepers and engage directly with voters, face the prospect of being silenced and marginalized should this bill become law. The bill, therefore, represents a direct threat to the progress made towards greater inclusivity and participation in Nepal’s political landscape. Instead of fostering a vibrant and democratic digital sphere, the proposed legislation paves the way for a controlled and censored online environment, where dissent is stifled, and the voices of marginalized communities are further marginalized. The bill’s potential to undermine democratic progress, stifle freedom of expression, and empower government overreach should be a cause for serious concern for all who value the principles of a free and open society.