The government of Nepal is moving forward with an attempt to regulate the use of social media. To this effect, Minister for Communication and Information Technology, Prithvi Subba Gurung, has introduced the ‘Social Media Bill 2081.’
This bill was registered at the National Assembly Secretariat on Monday. Minister Gurung, who is also the government’s spokesperson, claims that the bill has been introduced out of necessity.
He states, “Almost all countries have realised the need to create clear laws to make the use of social media more organised, respectful, and secure. In Nepal, the use of social media has been increasing alongside advancements in information technology.”
The government claims that the bill is introduced with good intentions. However, activists advocating for the right to information, such as Taranath Dahal, argue that the provisions in the proposed bill contradict this claim.
Dahal asserts, “If the intent was simply to regulate social media, that would be acceptable. However, the bill appears to be aimed at controlling users. Holding digital platforms accountable and responsible is fine, but intimidating users is unacceptable. Essentially, the bill seems to be an attempt to curtail citizens’ freedom of speech.”
Broad yet vague definitions
Clause 2 of the proposed bill outlines definitions.
According to Clause 2(j), “Social media refers to any system that enables interactive communication between individuals, groups, or institutions via computers, computer networks, the internet, or other electronic technology and devices.”
The bill specifies that both individuals and organisations can be considered social media users and further defines what constitutes social media usage.
Clause 2(t) states, “The use of social media includes posting, sharing, commenting, live streaming, reposting, tagging, and using hashtags on publicly available social media platforms in the form of text, images, audio, signals, or audiovisual content.”
The bill also provides a separate definition for social media platforms:
Clause 2(g) describes a “platform” as “an application, website, blog, AI tool, or other publicly available social media platform created in cyberspace using electronic technology that facilitates the exchange of ideas and information between individuals, groups, or institutions.”
Additionally, the bill defines social media misuse:
Clause 2(n) states, “Misuse of social media includes posting, sharing, commenting, live streaming, reposting, using hashtags, or mentioning content that violates this act or existing laws.”
According to Dahal, these definitions lack clarity.
“The bill makes the definition of social media extremely broad but also vague and ambiguous. With such a wide definition, authorities can interpret it as they see fit, which could lead to misuse of the law,” he warns. Dahal fears that public officials who dislike criticism on social media could exploit this law for their own benefit.
“The bill mentions ‘false propaganda’ and ‘misleading content,’ but it does not clearly define what these terms mean. This ambiguity could lead to misinterpretations in the future, making the regulation of social media highly problematic.”
Provisions in conflict with the constitution
Article 17 of Nepal’s Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of thought and expression as a fundamental right. Article 17(2)(a) explicitly states that “every citizen shall have freedom of thought and expression.”
However, the Social Media Bill proposes criminal charges against individuals for expressing opinions on social media. Dahal argues, “The bill imposes conditions on social media users, making it punitive in nature. It categorises violations as criminal offenses, even suggesting imprisonment. But user-generated content is subjective in nature, and not every expression should be criminalised.”
He points out that the bill does not differentiate between civil and criminal offenses, treating all cases as criminal acts. This could enable the government to file cases against citizens simply for sharing content on social media.
Clause 16 of the proposed bill outlines five obligations for social media users:
- Users must not post, share, or promote derogatory words, images, audio-visual content, or hate speech that could damage someone’s reputation.
- Users must not spread false or misleading information.
- Users must not advertise or trade prohibited goods.
- Users must not mimic or share content that violates existing laws.
- Users must not promote superstition or content that negatively affects public health.
Failure to comply with these provisions could result in a fine of up to Rs 500,000. Clause 16(3) states, “Users violating these conditions may be fined up to Rs 500,000 by the relevant government department overseeing information technology.” This means that simply posting, sharing, liking, or commenting on social media could lead to significant financial penalties.
Threat to press freedom
Article 19 of Nepal’s Constitution guarantees press freedom, stating that “No prior restraint shall be imposed on any news, editorial, article, or other published material in any electronic, print, or other medium.”
However, the Social Media Bill includes a provision that criminalises content deemed harmful to Nepal’s sovereignty, national security, federal unity, or inter-community relations. Clause 18 states, “No social media user shall engage in activities contrary to national interest.”
The government can initiate criminal proceedings against journalists or media organisations if their content is perceived as harming Nepal’s sovereignty, security, or unity. The bill further criminalises spreading content that creates hatred or hostility based on class, caste, religion, culture, region, or community. Under this provision, the government retains the authority to determine what constitutes criminal content and take restrictive actions accordingly.
Regulation and censorship authority given to government department
The responsibility to oversee social media registration and user compliance is proposed to be given to Nepal’s government department handling information technology. Dahal criticises this, stating, “A constitutional or fundamental right should be overseen by an independent and impartial body. However, the proposed bill places this authority under a government department, which is flawed.”
The bill also empowers the government to shut down social media platforms or remove content. Clause 13 gives authorities the right to direct platforms to remove unlawful content. The department will investigate complaints and, if deemed necessary, instruct the platform to remove content either temporarily or permanently.
Clause 13(3) states, “Upon receiving such instructions, the concerned party must immediately remove the content.” Failure to comply with this directive could result in a fine of up to Rs 1.5 million.
Concerns over governmental intentions
Sociology professor Samrat Sharma believes the intent behind the bill must be examined. He questions, “Were experts consulted before drafting this bill?” Sharma suggests the bill should be analysed from three perspectives: social media operators, social media users, and media organisations. He fears the government is trying to assert control over all three sectors.
“Social media is a powerful tool that shapes public narratives. Is this bill a strategic move by the government to control narratives?” he asks. While most countries recognise the need to regulate social media, Sharma believes Nepal’s proposed bill leans more towards control than regulation.
He says, “Public discourse is an essential function of social media. People use it to express their views. Suppressing this freedom is detrimental to democracy.” If the bill is intended only to promote positive content about the government while suppressing criticism, Sharma urges the government to reconsider.
He warns, “The spirit of the bill suggests that the government only wants to hear what it likes. However, democracy thrives on both support and criticism.” Sharma concludes by cautioning against the government’s monopolisation of regulatory authority, emphasising the importance of maintaining democratic principles. He says, “Democracy means listening to criticism and making informed decisions. The government must not attempt to stifle critical voices.”
