In a statement, Article 19 and the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) said the reference to “harmful” content suggests that this can include anything that is not illegal and also “legal but harmful” content.
They said such a broad definition would likely result in increased “lawful content” being taken down from the internet.
“We also see a risk that this opens the door for the government to exploit or manipulate companies’ content moderation systems to censor unwanted speech,” they said, citing statements that were critical of those in power as an example.
Apart from potential abuse, a vague definition of “harmful content” would also make it difficult when it comes to enforcement and is open to challenge on legal grounds, they said.
Article 19 and CIJ said such vague definitions were one of the many aspects of the bill that posed significant risks to freedom of expression.
They said while the establishment of an Online Safety Appeal Tribunal seemingly provided the necessary due process and the right to be heard, the proposed law also empowered the tribunal to determine “affirmation and punishment for contempt”.
The NGOs argued that the authority to sit in and make decisions regarding proceedings of contempt of court should be vested exclusively with the courts.
“No individual, entity or institution other than the court itself may sit in and decide on such proceedings.
“An overreach of the powers would usurp the role of the courts.”
The NGOs were also concerned that under the proposed law, application service providers (ASPs) and content application service providers (CASPs) would be penalised if they fail to reduce certain types of content.
They said such stipulations would inadvertently provide ASPs and CASPs with a strong incentive to over-censor their users to limit their liability exposure.
“This is particularly true given the vague concepts and definitions like ‘harmful’ content.”
They went on to say that the “flawed” bill had the potential to undermine rather than protect human rights online.
“Therefore, we urge legislators to overhaul the bill and carefully consider and address the key concerns we raised in this preliminary analysis.”