04. DISSENT AND ASSEMBLY Despite freedom of expression being a right that is constitutionally protected, it is frequently restricted in relation to anti-Government dissent. In Sri Lanka, this is often done by way of emergency regulations or statutes such as the Penal Code, and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979 (PTA), on the pretext of public order, national security, counter-terrorism, etc. The case of Amaratunga v Sirimal and Others, famously referred to as the Jana Ghosha (peoples’ noise) case is notable as it relates to a protest against certain actions of the Government. The protest entailed a 15-minute noisy cacophony by the ringing of bells, the tooting of vehicle horns, the beating of drums, etc. When the petitioner did not comply with the police order to stop beating the drum, his drum was broken with a rice pounder and he was assaulted. Even though the respondents argued that they acted in accordance with the law, the Court in its judgement held that criticism of the Government, its policies and of political parties is a permissible exercise of freedom of expression under Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution and thereby, the petitioner’s fundamental right of expression was violated. With the evolution of social media as a form of communication and a platform to share information, mobilisation, documentation, and sharing of protests have changed (Palmieri-Branco, 2021). Social media provides a new platform for people to express dissent, and protesting online can take various forms such as social media campaigning, virtual sit-ins, and signing online petitions. In tandem, States and Governments have also stepped into a new era of surveillance and control, and repression has now taken a new face in the form of ‘regulating the online sphere’. How the extension of freedom of expression to include dissent against Governments translates to anti-Government expression online is epitomised in the Aragalaya protest movement of 2022, where social media became a key tool in mobilising protestors and raising awareness. The quick spread of protests, which initially started in Colombo, to other parts of the country was facilitated by the sharing of information through social media. EMERGENCY REGULATIONS The authorities responded to the 2022 Aragalaya protests by serious and repeated violations of fundamental rights. Emergency Regulations (ERs) were imposed on three different occasions during the movement by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in April and May 2022, and President Ranil Wickremesinghe in July 2022. The ERs contained sweeping and vaguely worded provisions that sought to severely clamp down on freedom of expression (International Federation for Human Rights, 2023). This was done on the pretext of preventing the spread of “false information and rumours”. For instance, Regulation 15 of Extraordinary Gazette No. 2289/07 prohibited the communication verbally or through social media, of statements, images or false rumours that were - 08 -