In the theoretical discussion on the social media bill, most of the parliamentarians of the National Assembly have expressed concern that the bill is control-oriented in nature and contains provisions that stifle the freedom of expression of citizens. Parliamentarians from both the ruling and opposition parties said that it is not appropriate to impose harsh punishments, fines of millions and years of imprisonment on the basis of likes, comments or shares in the bill.

Seven months after its registration in the National Assembly, the theoretical discussion on the 'Social Network (Use and Regulation) Bill, 2081' started on Tuesday. Although legal system is necessary to control the misuse of social media and cyber crime, the parliamentarians demanded extensive amendments saying that the provisions of the proposed bill are such as to stifle the constitutional right to freedom of expression.  In the

discussion, the parliamentarians also objected to the issue of judicial authority being given to the administrative organs . Also, questions were raised on vague terms that have broad meanings like 'harmful', 'against national interest', and 'false information'. The MPs of the opposition party expressed their fear that the freedom of expression would be curtailed and responded that the bill reflects control rather than regulation. Participating in the

discussion, MP Anjan Shakya said that the regulation of social media is not only a demand of time but also an imperative need for social, health and national security. Stating that it is a shared responsibility to make the use and operation of social networks orderly, dignified and safe, she gave examples of democratic countries like Germany, France, Singapore and India making legal efforts to make such platforms accountable. "The legislation should be sent to the management committee for further discussion and modification."  

Ghanshyam Rizal of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist) said that the bill is necessary to make the operators and users responsible and accountable for the correct and systematic use of social media. However, he expressed concern that some of the provisions of the bill appear to be control-oriented rather than regulation-oriented.

"The suspicion that the two-thirds strong government is trying to impose its tyranny on this bill can be seen in some of the provisions of this bill," he said.

Suresh Kumar Ale Magar of Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center) also opined that although the bill is necessary, due to the activities of the two-thirds majority government, we should be cautious. He alleged that the government is moving forward in the manner of creating terror by occupying various mechanisms of the state and expressed his suspicion that this bill will not be a tool for that.

His question was that laws have been made in various countries to regulate the misuse of social media and even if it is necessary, this bill will be used to strengthen the tendency to use it against their opponents or to not tolerate comments against themselves.

Indira Devi Gautam of the ruling Nepal Communist Party (UML) clarified that this bill has come about because misleading information, expressions of hate, obscenity, violation of personal privacy and various types of cyber crimes have created a serious challenge. She said that the purpose of the

bill is to regulate social media platforms and ensure the rights of citizens. Issues such as misinformation, hateful content, and hate crime should be clearly defined, she said, and there is a suspicion that freedom of expression can be curbed. It may be difficult to bring a multinational company into the legal sphere.' 

Kiran Babu Shrestha of the Nepali Congress said that society is benefiting from the good use of social media and misuse is also increasing. He said that although some provisions of the bill can regulate social media, some provisions can infringe on the freedom of expression of the people and show the interest and concern of the common citizens and stakeholders. 

'Going beyond the limits of fundamental rights provided by the constitution, can be misinterpreted by using ambiguous words,  Provisions like increasing the police force, giving the authority to decide punishments to a department of a ministry and granting judicial powers like a court, things that are contrary to established judicial norms are objectionable,' said MP Shrestha, 'Those in power will feel happy when they oppress, but they should be careful what will happen tomorrow when they are in the opposition.'' Although the objectives of the

bill are good, its provisions are not in accordance with those objectives and it is of a controlling nature rather than a regulatory one. Nepal Beduram Bhusal of the Communist Party (Unified Socialist) said. He also mentioned that the bill contains provisions that are in conflict with the fundamental rights provided by the constitution, stifle the right to freedom of expression, and contain provisions that are in conflict with laws such as the Electronic Transactions Act, the National Broadcasting Act, the Press and Publication Act, and the Personal Privacy Act.

Bhushal said that contrary to the principle that non-judicial institutions cannot make judicial declarations, the information technology department (administrative body) has been given the right to make judicial declarations.

Similarly, Taraman Swar of the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center) argued that although the bill is necessary to prevent disorder and anarchy, it has a control-oriented purpose rather than encouraging the positive use of social media.

"It controls the freedom of expression of citizens and makes the use of social media a weapon of repression," he said, adding that the bill contains vague and broad terms such as "harmful," "against the national interest," and "false information." What is the definition of this? The government has such  Are you trying to encroach on civil rights based on a vague and broad meaning?' 

Gopal Bhattarai of the Nepal Communist Party (UML) claimed that there is more regulation than control in the bill. He said that it will regulate for the correct use of social media, maintain social harmony and control disorderly things. "Some aspects of it may need to be corrected, we can correct it by going to the Legislative Management Committee," he said, "those who provoke people's social and cultural harmony should be prosecuted."

Narayanadatta Mishra of the Nepali Congress said that this bill is very necessary and has come too late. He said that the work should be carried out before passing through this session. "It seems that the risk of press freedom and freedom of expression being violated should also be reduced," he said. Is the punishment a little too much? Ganga Kumari Belbase of Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center) opined that it was not necessary to regulate new technology like social media so quickly. He said that the bill has been made very complicated from the point of view of punishment and punishment.

Madan Kumari Shah Garima of Nepal Communist Party (Unified Samajwadi) said that it is good to go ahead with the long stalled bill. She said that until now the work of organizing social media is based on instructions, now it is organized by law, the welfare and protection of crime victims, awareness programs, compensation from the perpetrators to the victims is a positive aspect of this. However, he said that since social media is also a means of freedom of expression, its regulation is directly related to the fundamental rights of citizens.

"This bill has been arranged in such a way as to affect constitutional provisions, valid principles of law, human rights and civil rights guaranteed by international conventions to which Nepal is a party," said Shah, "the provisions made in it are control-oriented."

While answering the questions raised by the parliamentarians, the Minister of Communication and Information Technology Prithvo Subba Gurung expressed his commitment to improve the proposed words or sentences if they have double meaning. He also expressed his commitment that no organization, person, entity should be given discretionary rights and that such provisions should be removed. He said that society cannot function if some things are not regulated and cyber crime has become a big challenge in the world through IT.

Minister Gurung complained that social media has a lot of influence in Nepal and even though they were asked to register, they did not come. "We asked them to come and register in Nepal three times, but they replied that they don't accept your constitution, they don't accept your laws, they don't accept you either," Gurung said, "They say they don't believe us."

He mentioned that he never had a controlling mind and asked him not to be afraid of closing the mouth of Lochana. "This is not a gag bill," he said. Minister Gurung made it clear that the Bill was not brought to curtail freedom of expression but to control chaos, attack on social harmony, hate speech and cyber crime spread by the use of social media. 

Acts of disturbing social harmony, spreading communal riots, inciting incidents like murder and violence cannot be considered as freedom of expression, he said. He informed that 19 thousand 730 complaints were filed in the Cyber Bureau in the last financial year alone. He argued that crimes such as creating fake IDs, hacking, breaching the confidentiality of accounts, sexual exploitation (sextortion) and financial fraud (extortion) are rampant through social media and the existing laws are insufficient to prevent them.