The definitive voice of Sri Lanka’s technology industry since 2014.
Type at least two characters to search articles.
You complain about a bank. Someone threatens legal action. You criticise a politician. Someone else says you cannot say that.
Then another person arrives in the comments with the familiar defence: “Freedom of speech!”
Sri Lanka recognises freedom of speech. But understanding it takes a little more than typing those three words underneath a controversial Facebook post.
It also helps to know the difference between a bruised ego, a civil dispute and an actual crime.
Article 14(1)(a) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution protects citizens’ freedom of speech and expression, including publication.
In everyday terms, expressing an opinion is a recognised right. You do not need government permission simply to disagree with a policy or publish criticism.
That matters because public debate would be fairly pointless if it protected only things everyone already agreed with.
Political criticism is a central reason freedom of expression matters.
“This policy is unfair” is an opinion. “The government should explain how this money was spent” is a demand for accountability.
Neither becomes a threat simply because it makes someone uncomfortable.
But accusing a named person of stealing public money introduces a factual allegation. You are now claiming something happened, rather than expressing dissatisfaction.
That distinction matters whether you are writing a newspaper article or posting to 200 Facebook friends.
International human rights standards also recognise that public officials must tolerate scrutiny. The UN Human Rights Committee says criticism of political leaders deserves strong protection, and insulting a public figure is not, by itself, sufficient justification for punishment.
A minister’s job comes with public accountability. A perfectly comfortable comments section is not part of the package.
Sri Lanka’s constitutional protection has limits.
Article 15 allows restrictions prescribed by law on grounds including racial and religious harmony, defamation, contempt of court and incitement to an offence. It also provides broader grounds covering national security, public order and others’ rights.
These provisions identify grounds for legal restrictions. They do not make every offensive comment an offence, or mean an official’s displeasure is enough to establish one.
There is a substantial difference between arguing that a government should resign and encouraging people to attack someone.
Context, the wording used and the relevant law all matter.
“My delivery arrived three days late, and customer support did not respond to my messages.”
“The owner is a criminal running a scam.”
The first describes an experience that can be checked against delivery records and messages. The second makes a serious accusation.
A useful review explains what happened, when it happened, and what the business did about it. Screenshots and receipts help substantiate your account.
Adding “just my opinion” does not automatically turn a factual accusation into a harmless opinion. Neither does putting a question mark after it.
“Is this person stealing customers’ money?” can still communicate an allegation.
Defamation alone is a civil matter in Sri Lanka. Criminal defamation was repealed in 2002.
In a statement dated 3 February 2026, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka said police should not investigate complaints purely alleging defamation where no other offence is reasonably suspected.
A person claiming damage to their reputation can seek a remedy through the civil courts. Separate conduct, such as threats or extortion, may involve criminal offences. Calling everything “defamation” does not settle which law applies.
A lawyer’s letter is also not a court judgment. Take it seriously, preserve your records and obtain advice, but recognise the difference between someone demanding something and a court ordering it.
The Human Rights Commission’s February statement highlighted journalist Tharindu Jayawardena , who had been summoned for a police inquiry following a complaint about allegedly defamatory reporting concerning public funds.
The Commission criticised the handling of the matter and reiterated the distinction between reputational disputes and criminal investigations.
It also said journalists should check accuracy, give people an opportunity to respond to allegations and correct mistakes promptly.
hat is the practical balance: scrutiny needs protection, and allegations need proper reporting.
Yes. Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Bill prompted protests and opposition from journalists, civil society organisations and rights groups when Parliament debated it in January 2024.
The government presented it as a response to online abuse, fraud and harmful false statements. Critics warned that its broad wording could also be used against legitimate criticism.
Parliament passed the Bill on 24 January 2024 . The dispute was about who would decide which statements crossed the line and how much power the law would give them.
That concern matters even to people who never publish political commentary. Consumer complaints, satire and reporting can all become harder when people cannot confidently understand what a law prohibits.
“Gazetted” is one of those words that makes everything sound immediately compulsory.
A published Bill is a proposal for legislation. A regulation or commencement notice serves a different purpose. The publication date alone cannot tell you whether a new restriction is already operating.
There is a useful example here. Parliament records that the Online Safety (Repeal) Bill passed its second reading on 23 June 2026 and was referred to the Legislative Standing Committee .
That is a legislative step. It does not, by itself, mean the original Act has been repealed.
Before sharing a headline claiming a Gazette has “banned criticism” or “removed the law”, check what was actually published and which stage it has reached.
There is no single office that approves everything Sri Lankans are allowed to say.
Courts decide legal disputes and constitutional questions. Police investigate suspected criminal offences. The Human Rights Commission receives complaints about fundamental rights violations within its mandate.
The Online Safety Act provides for a separate Online Safety Commission , with powers concerning specified online statements. That is different from the Human Rights Commission and does not replace the courts.
The right complaint route depends on what has happened.
These routes serve different purposes. CERT provides cybersecurity assistance; it does not decide whether a journalist’s allegation is defamatory. The HRCSL accepts complaints in Sinhala, Tamil or English, including online and through its offices.
eep the original messages, post links, usernames, dates and screenshots. If you receive a police summons or court document, get legal advice promptly. Constitutional remedies can involve strict deadlines.
There are two different questions here: what the state can lawfully restrict, and what a privately operated platform allows under its rules.
Having a right to express yourself does not automatically guarantee publication on someone else’s Facebook page, newspaper or discussion group.
Similarly, other people can disagree with you. A furious reply is not, by itself, censorship.
For a removed post, the platform’s reporting and appeal tools are the practical starting point. For an unlawful threat, the issue goes beyond a moderation decision.
Yes, although their protections and enforcement systems differ.
India offers a useful example of a court drawing the line. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India in 2015, its Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalised certain online messages. The judgment found the provision vague and overly broad, with a chilling effect on expression.
Singapore takes another approach . Its Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, known as POFMA, allows correction and stop-communication directions concerning false statements of fact under specified conditions. The legislation also provides appeal procedures.
Globally, the UN Human Rights Committee’s guidance is that restrictions must have a lawful basis, serve a permitted purpose and meet tests of necessity and proportionality. Protecting someone’s rights cannot become an unlimited excuse for silencing everyone else.
An online safety law is not automatically media suppression. People need protection from genuine harm.
But broad offences, unclear definitions and weak safeguards can make a law a tool for suppressing reporting or dissent.
The damage can happen before anyone is convicted. A journalist may abandon an investigation. A customer may delete a legitimate complaint. Someone may decide a police inquiry is too much trouble and stop speaking.
That is the chilling effect : people silence themselves because the consequences feel unpredictable.
A useful law should make the boundary clearer. It should give people a way to challenge decisions and distinguish harmful conduct from uncomfortable criticism.
You can be critical, funny, angry and unpopular.
The practical distinction is between expressing a view, reporting an experience and making an allegation you may need to substantiate.
Say what happened. Keep the evidence. Correct genuine mistakes. Take threats and formal legal notices seriously.
Freedom of speech gives public debate room to breathe. “Someone did not like my post” and “I broke the law” are very different statements.
This article provides general information, not legal advice on an individual case.
The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) announced that a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) certificate will be mandatory for specific transactions, beginning 1 November…
The Colombo District Court has opened up electronic filing of cases as part of the Judicial Service Commission’s e-Courts initiative. The service…
The Department of Motor Traffic’s Electronic Revenue Licensing system (eRL 2.0) will be temporarily suspended in all provinces except the Western Province,…
Sri Lanka has launched a new digital survey designed to measure how citizens experience public services across the country. Called SL-PULSE, short…
From 1 October 2026, Sri Lanka’s telecommunications regulator will move several device-clearance processes to an online system. The Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of…
Recently, the Sri Lanka Police announced a new official app. Speaking at a press conference, Police Media Spokesman Fredrick Wootler said the…
The government is planning to build 1,000 new 4G towers over the next three years, according to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The…
The Sri Lankan government has a super app on the way with the aim of streamlining its services to the public. First…
Last week, several e-government services went offline following a technical issue with the Lanka Government Cloud (LGC). The Government of Sri Lanka…
A useful perspective, a sharp question or something we missed — bring it to the discussion.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings
Please explain the reason why this comment should be removed
Tech News, Reviews, Start-ups, Fintech
News, analysis and culture from Sri Lanka’s technology ecosystem.
© 2026 ReadMe. All rights reserved.
Loading comments…