Organizations related to journalism and individuals interested in digital rights have requested the government to withdraw the bill on social media registered two weeks ago in the National Assembly. Their argument is that some provisions of the bill violate the freedom of speech, right to information and right to privacy.

The social media bill is being strongly criticized by stakeholders as it is against democratic values, internet freedom and positive use of technology. Programs against the Bill have been held in Tehrathum, Biratnagar, Rupandehi and other districts. A group of youth and students have demonstrated in Maitighar in Kathmandu. NAVISANGH, Online TV Journalist Association Nepal and others protested against the Bill in Maitighar.

The content creator of the social network is raising his voice against the bill by running the 'Boln De Sarkar' campaign. Leaders of opposition parties in the House of Representatives, General Ministers of the ruling Congress, MPs, leaders and lawyers have also expressed their disagreement on various provisions of the Bill in Parliament and public programs. They say that the provisions in the bill violate the citizens' freedom of expression, right to information and right to privacy.

The Federation of Nepalese Journalists has requested the government, parliament and political parties to withdraw the bill and rewrite it to regulate social media platforms only. "The Federation has drawn attention to the fact that certain provisions of the Social Media Bill are curtailing the freedom of press and expression and curtailing the constitutional rights of citizens," the statement issued by the Federation said, "It is not appropriate to advance the bill that violates the fundamental rights of citizens without even having a general discussion with the stakeholders including the Federation."

He held the view that he should get off. The Federation also issued a statement on January 16 saying that any law that curtails and controls the freedom of press and expression will not be accepted. In a statement signed by General Secretary Ram Prasad Dahal, it was mentioned that there is serious disagreement and objection to the fact that the government has moved forward with the bill including some provisions that hurt the freedom of the press and expression without general consultation and discussion with the leading civil society organizations including the federation.

Center for Media Research Nepal's analysis in its 'Media Policy Hub' states that the provisions of the bill violate democratic values ​​and civil rights, are self-motivated control rather than facilitation and regulation, create a wide range of freedom of expression and attempt to interpret expression itself as a crime. Similarly, it has been pointed out that there are weaknesses in the bill including disregarding the existing laws, trying to control the right of protest and criticism, and trying to create an environment of fear and panic for the civil society and the press. Some of the provisions proposed in the

bill restrict the right to freedom of thought and expression guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution, according to experts and general users of social media and press freedom. They are concerned that the provisions of the bill may be misused and misinterpreted if the user transmits false or misleading information to the detriment of the national interest through anonymous or disguised identity (fake ID, page, group) and the user will be imprisoned for up to 5 years and fined up to 1.5 million rupees.

"No one shall open a disguised, permanent or temporary group, page or any other type of ID on the platform, individually or collectively, and transmit false or misleading information in such a way as to interfere with Nepal's sovereignty, geographical integrity or adversely affect the national interest," it is stated in section 27 of the bill. A fine of up to rupees or both will be punished. In a brief analysis of the bill released by

Digital Rights Nepal on Thursday, it is said that the vague prohibitory provisions, the provision on criminal defamation, some conditions to be followed by the platform, the provision on removing content from social media, the provision on criminalization of anonymous or disguised identity will affect freedom of thought and expression, right to privacy, right to information and communication .

"Most of the types of content prohibited to be posted, published and broadcast on social networks mentioned in section 4 of the bill are either very broad, vague, weakly defined or not defined at all," the analysis said, "there is a possibility of abuse of those provisions and violation of freedom of expression." In section 16 (1) of the bill, words such as "offensive words", "hochoune", "troll" are very broad, It has been analyzed to be open to any interpretation and confer arbitrary powers on the government as it gives a vague and open meaning . It has been mentioned that the

bill provides for the regulation of social media and digital platforms to the Department of Information Technology and since it falls under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, it cannot be regulated independently by the government or government agencies that are directly influenced by the people in power. According to experts, the provision of removing content from social media in section 13 of the

bill restricts freedom of expression and increases the risk of censorship. As platforms widely remove even legitimate content to avoid legal risks, such an arrangement creates a situation of widespread censorship and it restricts the free flow of information and freedom of expression online, according to experts .

"If information, complaint or complaint is received from the platform that content contrary to this Act or prevailing laws is disseminated, the department will investigate such information, complaint or complaint," Section 13 states, "During the investigation, if such content is found to be removed from the platform temporarily or permanently, or partially or completely, the department will instruct the licensee or the contact point of the licensee in Nepal." Digital rights activists have said that abstract and vague prohibitions and censorship, such as taking action, risk opening the door to arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression. They have pointed out that such abstract prohibitions not only criticize the policies of the government or raise sensitive issues, but also there is a risk that the criticism of a politician may be treated as an insult or abuse. Similarly, section 27 of the bill seeks to decriminalize the act of remaining anonymous on social media and it discourages the practice of being a whistleblower or an anonymous source, especially in journalism.

Media Policy Hub has suggested that the provision of removing content or providing user data in sections 10 and 13 of the bill should be made transparent, accountable and judicial. As the provision of section 12 (h) violates the condition of being able to convey information or express opinions in secret, it is suggested that this provision should be removed, social media platforms should be made liable in case of negligence or any damage/damage, and the arrangement and operation of the platform's registration and license should be made easy and transparent . "There is no doubt that a law is necessary to regulate social media platforms," ​​the Media Policy Hub's analysis said, "but such a law should be made in a way that is freedom-friendly and facilitates the use of technology, and national and citizen interests are paramount." Such a law cannot be effective if it is practically possible and internationally popular and accepted.