producing of ‘obscene content’. However, ‘obscene’ has not been defined in either piece of legislation, and this leaves space for wide interpretation. In Sri Lanka, it is the police that have been the first interpreters of it. In the absence of a proper definition of ‘obscene’ in Sri Lankan law, one could refer to the Black’s Law Dictionary which vaguely defines ‘obscene’ using terms such as “extremely offensive under contemporary community standards of morality and decency” and “grossly repugnant to the generally accepted notions of what is appropriate”. Furthermore, neither of the laws address ‘pornography’ explicitly, but they have been applied to criminalise pornographic content. The existence of such laws has a direct impact on freedom of expression in Sri Lanka. Even pornography created by consenting adults can be seen as ‘obscene’ by some, especially if the content is being shared outside of what is deemed to be ‘appropriate’ contexts such as adults-only websites. While ‘obscene’ should not be considered to be an objective test of expression, it is interesting how laws on obscene publications have been used to target consenting adults having sex and instances of non-consensual porn, revenge porn, and child abuse and exploitation exist online without being targetted by authorities. There are thousands of Facebook groups and pages involved in the sharing of images and videos of women and children for sexual exploitation. Many pointed out that the aforementioned managed to evade the police’s radar, but that the police managed to track down the couple involved in the Pahanthudawa video within days (Irugalbandara & Gunatilake, 2021). The use of these laws to interfere with the private lives of consenting adults as opposed to applying the law in good faith to address the very prevalent abuse and sexual violence is evidence of how certain laws are weaponised to target expression of gender and sexual identities, and by extension, curtail freedom of expression in both offline and online spaces. Sri Lanka has also experienced a history of various forms of artistic expression being censored on the pretext of ‘obscenity’. Movies like Aksharaya and Flying Fish which were political critiques were censored, and ‘obscenity’/’sexual explicitness’ were some of the reasons for censorship (Wanniarachchi & Samarajiva, 2021). In the aftermath of the ‘Pahanthudawa incident’, a draft Bill to deal with “obscene publications produced through information technology and other media” was gazetted in Parliament without public consultation, and there was no transparency as to whether stakeholders were consulted. It was presented in Parliament under the pretext of protecting women and children from widespread online violence and sexual harassment. However, many civil society actors, artists, and other stakeholders raised several objections regarding the Bill, and it was rescinded. These Bills which are presented to Parliament in supposed ‘good faith’ aim to control the right to engage in forms of expression that may be perceived by some as ‘controversial’ or ‘immoral’. Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code are widely misused to criminalise individuals belonging to the LGBTQI+ community in Sri Lanka, and they are subjected to severe violence and oppression. These provisions criminalise any type of sex that is considered ‘unnatural’, and this widely applies to sexual acts between same-sex individuals. In 2019, three gay men who were in a hotel room were arrested, not because they were engaged in sexual relations, but simply because they had condoms in their wallets (Maduwage, 2020). According to the 2018 performance report of Sri Lanka Police, the police had prosecuted 33 people for homosexuality in 2016 (Performance Report - Sri Lanka Police, 2018). In August 2022, a private member Bill was proposed to repeal 365A of the Penal Code. However, no action has been taken by the Government to act upon it. As a result of the weaponisation of these Sections against the LGBTQI+ community, members of the community find - 22 -