Media bill risks restricting online expression, says Bar Council
The concerns were raised in the Council’s opinion paper on the draft legislation, where it proposed amendments to eight articles.
Top Stories
The Bar Council has warned that the government’s proposed media regulation bill could restrict online expression and permit agencies to seize personal devices and access private information.
The concerns were raised in the Council’s opinion paper on the draft legislation, where it proposed amendments to eight articles. The recommendations include deleting certain provisions and revising definitions of key terms.
One of the central proposals is to amend the definition of “electronic media”. The bill currently defines electronic media as “audio, video, tape, digital storage media and the Internet.” The Bar Council has proposed restricting the definition to platforms that systematically disseminate news, information or ideas to the public, such as radio, television or online news outlets.
The Council also called for changes to the definition of “media”, which in the bill includes television, radio, websites, newspapers, magazines and internet publications. It recommended excluding personal communications, social media use, and individual expression from the definition, warning that the current draft could subject the general public to regulatory burdens.
According to the Council, the bill would permit authorities to collect personal information from people using platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and X, and allow for the confiscation of devices including phones, laptops and tablets. The opinion paper stated this could “facilitate misuse of information” and undermine democratic participation.
Among its recommendations, the Bar Council also proposed:
-
Amending the provision giving the President the power to appoint the Commission’s chair, suggesting instead that members elect the chair from among themselves.
-
Allowing newspapers and magazines to operate upon submission of required documents, without needing additional permissions.
-
Restricting the Commission’s powers to ensure no infringement of legal rights, including protection of confidential sources.
-
Removing provisions that empower the Commission to take direct action against individual journalists.
The Council stressed that international best practice distinguishes between professional media regulation and personal expression, and that the bill should be amended to uphold constitutional protections.
