In a roundtable discussion organized by Freedom Forum, several stakeholders expressed concern over the amendment of 10 Rules of the National Broadcasting Regulation, 2052. They warned that the vague provisions in the amendment could be intended to suppress online freedom of expression in Nepal.
This statement was originally published on freedomforum.org.np on 8 March 2022.
Freedom Forum and rights defenders have expressed severe concern over the amendment of 10 Rules of the National Broadcasting Regulation, 2052. They expressed such concern during a discussion organized jointly by Freedom Forum and Digital Rights Nepal in Kathmandu on March 7.
During the event, Executive Chief at FF, Taranath Dahal, welcomed the participants and spoke about the faulty provisions in the amendment. He said the Regulation had gone beyond the provisions of the National Broadcasting Act. It therefore has no legitimacy at all. It has further created confusion as to whether the aim was to regulate internet platforms or broadcasting. “How can a Regulation explain various things without any base in the Act,” he wondered, adding that the apparent intent was to suppress citizens’ right to free expression online.
With the amendment, the government has made it mandatory for internet-based broadcasting (videos) to require a license, which would cost half a million Rs, he shared. In terms of FoE, Rule 2 (C.6.) of the Regulation is highly problematic, Dahal observed.
However, the categorization of age for content viewing is a positive side of the amendment, Dahal suggested. A serious lack of consultation before the amendments to the Regulation puts into question political and bureaucratic accountability.
Similarly, the Chairperson of Digital Rights Nepal, Santosh Sigdel, said the amendment resulted in confusion and invited criticism due to its vague wording. “The objective of the amendment – [whether it is] to generate revenue, or to suppress internet users’ views, or to regulate content is not clear,” he explained, and argued it could be misused at any time to suppress free speech. Anything that comes under the Regulation must be defined and determined by the Act, which it currently lacks, according to Sigdel.
Sigdel added that there was only a partial grievance mechanism. The provision of approval for franchises is also a kind of pre-censorship.
Advocate Sanjeeb Ghimire wondered why the Regulation was speaking on substantive law. The amendment of the regulation (related to FoE) is therefore subject to repealing. Free speech on the internet can not be licensed, he underscored.
Mass Communications and Journalism Teacher at Tribhuvan University, Prakash Acharya, said that although there were problems with content in the online space, which could be addressed with other laws, licensing for free speech (for example, for videos online) is objectionable.
Other journalists and right defenders affiliated to online media spoke against the licensing provisions for ‘online television’ channels.
Rule 2 (C.6.) mentions that ‘Online Television (Internet TV)’ should be understood as the audiovisual materials produced by oneself and broadcast via the internet.
Similarly, Rule 2 (C. 4.) mentions OTT, and Rule 2 (C. 5.) the VOD. As per the amended provision, ‘VOD’ should be understood as the scheme that provides programs, except television, to the consumers as per their demand by the firm that is licensed by the Ministry.
In the OTT, media streaming on the digital platform via internet is mentioned. For this, the use of DTH cable or satellite television should not be included, it adds.
