Supreme Court Judge Commends Move to Amend Online Safety Act

COLOMBO (News 1st);  Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, Judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, commended the current government's initiative to amend the Online Safety Act to ensure compatibility with human rights standards, highlighting the need for a balanced approach to regulating digital communication while protecting fundamental rights.

Speaking at the RKW Goonesekere Memorial Oration in Colombo on Thursday (6), Justice Kodagoda commented on the Online Safety Act No. 9 of 2024, enacted by the previous parliament to address issues such as "defamation, criminal intimidation, and the dissemination of extremist content".

He acknowledged the controversy surrounding the Act, particularly regarding its alignment with constitutional provisions on free speech and potential enforcement abuses.

'The debate surrounds primarily on several factors. First, whether or not the Online Safety Act comes within the scope of Articles 15.2, 15.7 and 15.8 of the Constitution, which provides the only constitutionally permissible ways in which the exercise of the fundamental right to free speech could be restricted. Second, whether or not the parliament during the committee stage of that legislation enactment process took into consideration comprehensively the determination of the Supreme Court which considered the constitutionality of the corresponding bill. Third, whether the Act would lend itself to law enforcement related abuses or enforcement overreach affecting the legitimate exercise of the right to free speech. And fourth, whether the law as it stands now instils in the public a chilling effect which would result in prior restraint or self-censorship. In this regard, ladies and gentlemen, I must publicly acknowledge the recent initiative taken by the incumbent government to bring in an amendment or a series of amendments to the Online Safety Act so as to hopefully make it compatible with human rights norms and standards," elaborated Justice Yasantha Kodagoda.

In his address, he also emphasized the profound influence of social media and digital communication on political campaigning. He noted that while traditional political platforms remain active, social media has become the primary medium for political campaigns, significantly shaping political discourse and decision-making.

Justice Kodagoda warned of the potential for increased polarization due to algorithms that feed users content aligned with their preferences, potentially leading to coercive and unintentional decision-making. He raised concerns about the ethical implications of social media's influence, suggesting it may border on coercion.

"Thus, these new channels of communication can easily influence political discourses and the circumstances under which the public take political decisions. Polarisation of views is likely to increase, particularly as the algorithm or the artificial Intelligence driven operations will continue to feed the viewer or the consumer with what it thinks the consumer wishes to see or hear. Thus, you would appreciate the potential for these new channels of communication to influence political decision making and of course the exercise of franchise. It can well be argued, ladies and gentlemen, that the degree of influence which social media exerts on us is beyond what is ethically permissible and may even border on subtle ways of coercion resulting in spontaneous and unintentional decision making and involuntary behaviour," he added.