No comment.

The National Assembly will discuss the government’s contentious Social Media Bill which has been criticised by press freedom watchdogs, digital rights experts and journalists.

Nepal’s cybersphere is also largely united in condemning the proposed Bill, which seeks to monitor content on digital platforms and criminalise what it deems as offensive with hefty fines and jail terms for users and service providers. 

“The Bill has brought matters relating to freedom of expression entirely under criminal law, making them state party criminal cases,” explains  Baburam Aryal, digital law expert. “We already have laws that address defamation, indecent posts and extortion which extend to online spaces. Why has the government not tried to address these issues through existing laws?” 

Activists say the Bill does not seek to regulate social media so much as control what Nepalis say on them. The proposed restrictions would also undermine press freedom since mainstream media also have a presence on digital platforms and websites.

Says Nirmala Sharma, Chair of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists:  “The government might have drafted this bill with the intention of regulating social media, but this must not be done at the cost of the people’s right to express themselves freely. It will also affect press freedom at a time when much of Nepal’s media reaches its audience through digital platforms.”

The Bill seeks to criminalise content sharing on social media that ‘disturbs the sovereignty, territorial integrity, national unity and security of Nepal’, with imprisonment of up to five years, or fines of up to Rs500,000 or both.

The definitions of what is objectionable is so broad, anyone can be prosecuted. The Bill states that users must not ‘engage in offensive words and audiovisuals, trolling, or use abusive, insulting, or hate speech to harm or humiliate others’, and must not ‘spread false and misleading information, or distort information.’

The Bill will also require network companies like Meta and X to be registered in Nepal, establish an office, and pay taxes. Companies operating without registering will be fined Rs2.5 million.

Digital rights experts say that the government might be pushing registration of social media companies to gain access to personal data that  companies may be reluctant to hand over otherwise.

“If these global social media companies have not shared data with the authorities even in the countries where they are based, they will not do it for Nepal,” says Aryal, “They are not just answerable to Nepal but the entire world. They will not play by different rules for us.”

It is impossible for the thousands of apps Nepalis use on a daily basis to register and establish points of contacts in Nepal. Just because these digital services are easily available does not mean that they will be as easy to regulate.

“These companies have data protection obligations, and will not exchange information with Nepali authorities unless we provide a robust legislative framework and we can assure that the data will be used in case of civil wrongs and not criminal wrongs,” says Aryal.

The social media bill defines ‘hate speech’, but does not set parameters for ‘trolling’, ‘abuse’, ‘insult’ and ‘misleading information. It is all left purposefully vague so the government can take it to mean whatever it wants.

This is ominous because such broad provisions can allow Nepal’s authorities to bend the law to silence any criticism of politicians and muzzle anti-government sentiments.

While some terms are broad and undefined, the definition of terms like cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and hate-speech do not qualify as their actual definitions, and there are inconsistencies with punishments associated with the same offence in two different clauses.

The Bill would prohibit social media users from creating anonymous profiles or use fake names, which will carry a prison term of three months or a fine of Rs50,000 or both. Section 25 would also punish those disseminating content that is ‘obscene, false, or misleading with Rs300,000 fine and two years in jail or both.

Adds Aryal: “If an administrative agency becomes the final arbiter of what is wrong and harmful information, it opens up the possibility of maximum misuse of authority.”

To be sure, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X and TikTok do have content that propagates misinformation and disinformation, primarily due to lack of media literacy, click-bait journalism, and targeted content.

“While social media has become an essential source of news and information, it remains unreliable,” says pollster Madhu Acharya of  Sharecast Initiative. “Unlike legacy media, social media lacks gatekeepers, making it more susceptible to the spread of false information.”

Read also: Balancing free expression with fake news on social media

There is disinformation on both social and mainstream media, but the Bill bypasses existing legal provisions to criminalise it outright. 

Says Nirmala Sharma: “Government bodies must not be given absolute authority on social media usage over existing legal remedies.”

Ram Prasad Dahal, also of FNJ, adds, “Instead of focusing on genuine regulation and accountability, the entire bill appears to be a strategic move towards greater state control and censorship on social media platforms.”

Nepal’s leadership seems to be taking its cue from autoritarians in the region to stifle dissent and the freedom of the press. In India, even as much of the mainstream media fell under PM Narendra Modi’s tutelage, his loyalist Gautam Adani brought NDTV, one of the last mainstream media attempting to hold the Modi government to account.

In the USA, Elon Musk, who owns X, gleefully became the mouthpiece of Trump during his candidacy and now has an active role in shaping the US government. Other media entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, have also cosied up to the American president, who has repeatedly undermined the legitimacy of the press.

Nepali leaders have tried to muzzle the media in instalments in the past, but public outrage has stopped those measures. Last year, three people were arrested for sloganeering against Prime Minister KP Oli and Sher Bahadur Deuba of NC at a festival. Some who criticised the government on social media platforms have also been detained.

Read also: Media matters, Shristi Karki

Leaders have in the past arrested owners of media that have exposed corruption, and journalists reporting on natural resource extraction and corruption have received death threats. 

The watchdog Freedom Forum recorded 53 violations in 2024, of them 19 journalists received death threats, seven were detained, and three faced cybercrime charges. Additionally, 28 journalists were attacked and one journalist in Sudurpaschim Province was killed for reporting on corruption.

Nepal’s mainstream press is not without problems. It often puts out partisan content, and there have been allegations of blackmail. 

Hate speech, incitement of violence, and infringement of privacy on social media do go unpunished. The absence of fact checking means glaring falsehoods go uncorrected.

Ultimately, lines have to be drawn to safeguard social harmony and protect individuals from wanton reputational harm. With companies like Meta abandoning fact-checking, digital media platforms may need more national oversight. 

But this must not undermine freedom of expression in Nepal, one of the few countries with an open society in the region. 

“We have made it clear that the Bill in its current form must not be passed by Parliament, and the government must consult stakeholders to review and make necessary amendments,” says Nirmala Sharma.

With additional reporting from Sangya Lamsal.