Freedom of expression should not be restricted through new Nepal National Broadcasting Regulation

Unofficial translation of Kantipur Newspaper Editorial on March 9, 2022

The provision that the government has made it mandatory for any person or organization to operate online TV only by registering it through amendment in the National Broadcasting Regulations, is not only vague and immature, it also seems malicious. Such government efforts to control online video broadcasts pose a serious threat to citizens' freedom of expression. Even on such a serious issue related to the fundamental rights provided by the constitution, it is objectionable to try to regulate the parliament on the basis of executive rules.

First of all, the definition of online television (Internet TV) in the revised regulations is vague and confusing. It is not clear what is meant by the definition of online television as the act of producing and regularly broadcasting audio and video programs through the Internet. This gives government officials discretionary power, which increases the risk of abuse.

Second, the provision in the regulations for paying a fee of Rs. 500,000 for an online TV license is illegal in itself. It is unknown at this time what s/he will do after leaving the post. Does anyone have to pay a high fee for regular viewing on internet based social networks like YouTube, Tiktok, Facebook, Twitter? The rules are not clear. If someone has done business illegally through online or social media, it is a different matter to regulate it and bring it under the tax net, but the reason for the provision of comprehensive registration cannot be understood. The Internet is a huge open platform in itself and the government is not the provider of this service. Therefore, it is strange that the fee for broadcasting online video is fixed, the justification of this provision cannot be established. From this, the government's understanding of the difference between internet and frequency based broadcast media seems to be wrong.?

Thirdly, the government cannot bring such an arrangement which can curtail the freedom of expression which is considered as an inalienable fundamental right in democracy only on the basis of its own impulsiveness. Since freedom of expression is most likely to be taken away from government bodies, the question of suspicious intent is automatically added when such an arrangement is made by deceiving the parliament. It is not possible to say that the government will not make it a tool for manipulation tomorrow by giving discretionary powers to the officials by keeping vague definition in the rules. Therefore, such a provision should be brought only after a wide discussion among the people's representatives in the sovereign parliament. First the act should have been amended and then the rules amended accordingly. It needs to be cautioned that even the parliament cannot make a law that is against the constitutional right. The current ruling parties should keep in mind the fact that they have protested against the provisions of the Information Technology Bill that the previous government tried to bring. If there was an urgency to include such a provision in the regulations, and even if the intention of the government was not wrong, it should have been widely discussed among the stakeholders. However, it was only after the Gazette was published that all concerned except the government came to know about it. The Department of Information kept it confidential until it is submitted to the Council of Ministers through the Ministry of Communications and Ministry of law. This method of functioning, which is considered indecent in a democratic and transparent state system, has strengthened the doubts about the intentions of the government.

The fourth question is the correct treatment of the problem. Of course, successful electronic social networks are also being misused to give voice to the people on the ground. "While the truth is wearing shoes, through the use of this network, lies have traveled half the world." Some are abusing YouTube, especially in the face of the power of the visual media, as evidenced by the recent US MCC Grant, and the content on YouTube on the Pal Shah case, who has been in police custody on rape charges. In this case, the government must keep an eye on the dangerous content on social media that will deceive people, but the present method will not cure the problem. Doing so risks violates constitutional rights of citizens.

Laws can be imposed on those who do wrong and illegal things through social media including YouTube. If someone defames or insults others or violates constitutional boundaries, there are laws in place. Even in the example of the Pal Shah case, there are laws including the Children's Act to take action against those who reveal the identity of the complainant. Therefore, the government should correct the amended regulations which may be counterproductive for the democratic system. Citizens do not need government permission to express their views and creation of content on various social networks, they do not even have to pay for it, the government should accept this 'ultimate truth'. And, a government that is supposed to protect democratic rights must live up to those values.

https://ekantipur.com/opinion/2022/03/09/164679056466251307.html