Every single person has the freedom of expression and that can be held as an essential right of a person who lives in every democratic society. The European Convention on Human Rights holds that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information.” To use in our day-to-day life, to make important decisions as well as incorporate in the decision-making process, we need regularly updated information. And on the other hand, in order for us to receive the above said information, we need someone from the other end to express, process or deliver the required information that is needed for the decision making. A free, independent and diverse media plays the role of a “public Watch Dog”, keeping people informed and holding power to account. Lets take and example.
In Germany, a nurse was fired due to her whistleblowing of the unlawful acts that had been taken place in her working environment. A geriatric nurse claimed that the health practices of her workplace were putting older people at risk and was unlawfully dismissed. However, after the German courts found out how she was unlawfully dismissed, she was reinstated with compensation. This was after she stood up to her rights in expression, at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
However, the right of freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Because, if any expressing content seems inappropriate the law has the right to remove such information from social media platforms straightaway. Social media companies are also bearers of fundamental rights, such as the right to property and freedom of enterprise and therefore they have a say in how users can use their services and what content they can post. The so – called content moderation rules implant some sorts of restrictions of the freedom of expression through social media as “demote, demonetize, restrict access to or remove a concrete content item because of its incompatibility with their terms and conditions”. Under the Resolution 2590(2025) of the authors, Parliamentary Assembly: the main social media companies based on the United States, have a global reach. Which in that case might have a great influence on Sri Lankan Social Media Platform as well. Because of the great power these company holds, their activities to promote or demote might have a large impact on opinions and choices of billions of people. Therefore, without further arguments these major companies should comply with the rules, regulations and laws of the countries they provide there services in. Respecting their cultural diversity as well as religious behaviors.
The implementation of the “restrictive content moderation policies” lacks transparency. As an example. Shadow Banning is the act where the owner of the content only sees the posts he posted on social media while the other readers don’t. And the owner is not aware its inhabitance. This hidden practice should be forgiven, as it restricts the owner from defending his rights on freedom of expression.
In Sri Lanka we have something similar raised in the Online safety Bill. While the act curbs to defense harmful content, critiques argue that inefficient or vague moderation powers might silence legitimate disagreement without due process.
In the Online Safety Repeal(a Bill) to Repeal the Online Safety Act no. 9 of 2024 by Presented by the Hon. (Mr.) Ravi Karunanayake, M.P. on 08 th of May, 2025, declares that the earlier Act and all regulations made under it are repealed from the date of enactment. Finally, it clarifies that if there is any inconsistency between the Sinhala and Tamil versions of the repeal law, the Sinhala text will take precedence. In essence: it’s a straightforward repeal law, removing the 2024 Online Safety Act and its rules, with Sinhala as the authoritative text.
Additionally in the “Online Safety Bill” announced at 2023.11.07, the bill consists of the following chapters.
Part I Establishment of the Online Safely Commission
Part II – Powers and Functions of the Commission
Part III Prohibition of online communication of certain statements of fact
Part IV – Measures against communication of certain statements of fact in Sri Lanka
Part V Declared online locations
Part VI counteracting inauthentic online accounts and coordinated inauthentic behavior
Part VII Appointment of experts to assist investigations and their powers
Part VIII Finance
Part IX General (quoted)
References : Council of Europe – Freedom of Expression, Council of Europe – Guidance on Content Moderation, Council of Europe – 2025 Resolution on Social Media Content Moderation, Parliament of Sri Lanka – Online Safety Act, Parliament of Sri Lanka – Online Safety(Repeal) Bill.
Written By: –
Risini Vinavie Rodrigo
Faculty of Management and Finance ,
University of Colombo
Designed By: –
Rtr. Munshifa Waseer
( Senior Blog Team Member 2026-27)
