LAWS Sri Lanka has several laws that govern the freedom of expression in general, without a specific focus on online expression. Primarily, it is the Constitution of Sri Lanka that enshrines this right. Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression, including publication. However, this freedom is not absolute and the restrictions to it are set out in Article 15 of the Constitution. Article 15(2) states that this right can be subject to restrictions as may be prescribed by law in the interests of racial and religious harmony or with regard to Parliamentary privilege, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Furthermore, Article 15(7) provides for all fundamental rights recognised in Articles 12 (right to equality); 13(1) (freedom from arbitrary arrest); 13(2) (freedom from arbitrary detention) and 14 (freedom of speech, assembly, association, occupation and movement) to be restricted on grounds of national security, public order, and the protection of public health, morality, or to secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others, or for the purpose of meeting the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society. Article 15(8) states that the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 12(1), 13 and 14, in their application to the members of the Armed Forces, Police Force and other forces that are responsible for maintaining public order shall be subject to restrictions. Apart from these specific grounds of limitation, Article 16 states that all laws, both written and unwritten, that are in existence at the time of the Constitution coming into force remain valid notwithstanding any inconsistency with the fundamental rights Chapter of the Constitution. Freedom of expression as provided for in the Constitution has subsequently been expanded by the Courts in several instances. Prior to the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution which recognised the right to information as a fundamental right, judges have held that the freedom of expression includes the right to receive information (Abeysekera v Rubasinghe, 2001). In Mohottige and Others v Gunatillake (1992), the Court held that freedom of expression includes the right to fairly and within reasonable limits, criticise the Government. To this end, the Court has made determination on what a reasonable criticism might be in contrast to defamation. In Malalgoda v AG and Another, the applicant had all his publications seized by the police on the basis that his work was defamatory not only to the Government but also to members of the public. The Court held that freedom of expression which included the freedom of publication does not include the licence to defame and vilify others. Sri Lanka became a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant) in 1980 and enacted the ICCPR Act No. 56 of 2007 (ICCPR Act) to seemingly incorporate the treaty into domestic legal architecture. The primary purpose of this Act, supposedly, was to recognise rights that were not already recognised under the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the 1978 Constitution. The Act, however, has been enforced in a manner that is almost entirely antithetical to its stated purpose, as will be seen in the subsequent sections of this report. In light of this, it is important to note the comments of Chief Justice Sharvananda in Joseph Perera v. Attorney-General: “Laws that trench on the area of speech and expression must be narrowly and precisely drawn to deal with precise ends. Overbreadth in the area has a peculiar evil, the evil of creating chilling effects which deter the exercise of that freedom. The threat of sanctions may deter its exercise almost as patently as the application of sanctions. The State may regulate in that area only with narrow specificity.” - 06 -