Blocked: RTI requests reveal process behind

blocking of websites in Sri Lanka

Featured image courtesy Sri Lanka Brief

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE-on 12/08/2017

On November 8, 2017 news began to spread that website Lankaenews had
been blocked across all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Sri Lanka. The website
itself has continually been mired in controversy in 2016, a lawyer filed 14
contempt of court charges against its editor, for making defamatory statements
towards judges. Yet the blocking of the site is also chillingly reminiscent of 2010,
when the site was blocked before the release of the results of the Presidential
election. Following this, the website was blocked again in 2011, along with several
others, including Groundviews and Transparency International a move which
drew condemnation from the Committee to Protect Journalists. At the time, the
TRC denied that the sites were blocked. The Pugoda Magistrates Court also
ordered the police to arrest the LankaeNews editor in 2011, for publishing a false
report on an ongoing issue pending in court. More recently, Presidents Counsel
Hemantha Warnakulasuriya implicitly admitted that LankaeNews had been
blocked, commenting in his capacity as a member of the Telecommunications
Regulatory Commission (TRC).
Given that the Rajapaksa regime regularly and arbitrarily blocked websites critical
of its policies, this move was cause for concern. After civil society flagged the
blocking of Lankaenews, Groundviews, Vikalpa and Maatram filed RTI requests in
order to gain more information around the process of the blocking of news
websites.
These were the questions submitted to the Telecommunications Regulatory
Commission on November 10:
1. Complaints against news websites received by TRC from January 2015 to
date and identity of authorities making requests
2. Any websites blocked to ISPs in Sri Lanka as a result of complaints from
2015 onwards, and reasons given for the block
3. Any complaints against news website Lankaenews in 2017, and identity of
State authority making the complaint
4. Any order to block Lankaenews in November 2017, identity of the authority
making the order and reasons given for the same.
5. Records of TRC involvement in blocking Lankaenews, if any.
It has to be noted that sister website Maatram, which publishes content in Tamil
and filed a request three days later, on November 13, faced numerous difficulties.
The TRC asked Maatramif they could not submit their request in English or
Sinhala, and admitted it would have to outsource translation of the request, as
they were not equipped to process it. In fact, the TRC said this was the first RTI
request they had received in Tamil.
Our sister website Vikalpa, which publishes content in Sinhala, also lodged RTI
applications with the TRC on similar grounds. However,
both Vikalpa and Maatrams requests were rejected on grounds of national
security. This was particularly odd given Warnakulasuriya spoke about the block
on national television, as the Island article revealed.
On the other hand, the TRC did respond to Groundviews on November 28, noting
that question 1 was not under their possession, custody, or control. Questions
3, 4 and 5 were rejected on the grounds that it would undermine the defence of
the State or national security, under Section 5 of the Right to Information Act.
However, they did release a list of websites blocked by the TRC. (Question 2 of
the request). It has to be noted that while Maatram also asked for details of
websites blocked to Internet Service Providers from 2015 onwards, they did not
receive this information presumably because the material was unavailable in
Tamil.
The information released by the TRC revealed that 13 websites had been blocked
from 2015 onwards. The websites blocked included a number of websites
publishing political news, and a few sites publishing pornographic material.

List of blocked websites, according to the TRC

The supporting documentation provided showed the process behind blocking
each of the websites named in the letter.
While it was the Media Ministry who issued the final order to the TRC, the initial
order came directly from as high up as the Presidential Secretariat, for at least
four of the websites.

Letter from the Presidential Secretariat

This letter, signed by then Presidential Secretary P B Abeykoon, notes that the
listed websites have reached the Presidents attention. Interestingly, some of the
URLs flagged are clearly to specific articles, rather than an entire website.
From here, the Ministry of Parliamentary Reforms and Mass Media writes to the
Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (in a letter signed by then Ministry
Secretary Nimal Bopage).
The TRC in turn sends a letter out to the CEOs of all the major internet service
providers.
This identical letter was sent to the CEOs of Mobitel, Dialog, Etisalat, Airtel and
LankaBell
Many of the orders to the TRC around the blocking of websites appeared to
originate from the Ministry of Parliamentary Reforms and Mass Media, which
ordered the blocks temporarily, pending investigations. When contacted,
Director General of Government Information, Sudarshana Gunawardena said that
the Ministry was not conducting any ongoing investigations into blocked
websites, to his knowledge. However, he confirmed that a lawyer representing
LankaeNews had sent across a letter of demand with regard to the blocking of
their website, which was forwarded to the Attorney Generals Department. It is
not our policy to block websites, Gunawardena said, adding that such matters
were possibly a matter for the TRC, though he could not confirm this.
Equally revealing were the reasons given for the blocking of websites. The reasons
given for blocking four websites
(www.vigasapuwath.blogspot.com, www.ukussa.org, www.lankanewsweb.today,
and www.lankacnews) was for publishing incorrect information and damaging
the Presidents reputation. Two
others, www.lankanewsweb.today and www.sinhala.lnwtoday were blocked for
publishing false information.
Website www.newjaffna.net was blocked for making defamatory comments
about judges in Jaffna. Two of the flagged websites published pornographic
material, and were blocked following an investigation by the Cyber Crimes
Division.
It is the blocking of websites for publishing incorrect or false information that is
of particular cause for concern especially as the arbiter of what is considered
false or incorrect appeared to be the President, in at least four of the
documented instances.
This also throws a new light on the comments recently made by Presidents
Counsel Hemantha Warnakulasuriya (who is also a member of the TRC and
appointed by President Sirisena) defending the block on Lankaenews.
Warnakulasuriya said the website couldnt be allowed to propagate lies at the
expense of Government, political parties and individuals, adding that it was the
responsibility of the Government to counter propaganda campaigns. It is clear
that this view is not just held by Warnakulasuriya. Yet, this Government
campaigned (and came into power) promising transparency and greater media
freedom.
The dates too are worth noting. Only four of the 13 websites were blocked in
2017 the two pornographic sites (following a court order dated August
11) www.sinhala.lnwtoday (order from the Ministry of Media issued on May 19)
and a site called www.gossipplanets.com (order from the TRC, dated August 28).
Most of the others were blocked on September 6, 2016,
while www.newjaffna.net was blocked after an order from the Ministry of Mass
Media and Parliamentary Reforms on October 28, 2016.
In the past, questions around political interference in the blocking of websites
was met with relative silence, or at times with outright denial. The question of the
ISP complicity and intermediary liability in blocking the sites has
been raised several times in the past questions which have remained
unanswered until now. It is revealing that the TRC has already declined to provide
information with regards to the blocking of LankaeNews. Groundviews has filed
an appeal with the TRC, in the hope that this too will be revealed in the coming
weeks. Vikalpaand Maatram will also appeal the rejection of their requests on
grounds of national security.
In 2008, the Colombo Declaration on Media Freedom and Social
Responsibility called on the Government to recognise and protect free speech on
the Internet, particularly by avoiding the banning, blocking or censoring of
websites without reasonable grounds. Apart from this, there is no comprehensive
law regulating Internet access, nor promoting it as a medium for free expression
(though there are several laws the Computer Crimes Act the Sri Lanka
Telecommunications Act, the Information & Communication Technology Act and
the Electronic Transactions Act which address various issues around the usage of
the Internet.) There have been several attempts to regulate or impinge on free
expression online in Sri Lanka from the Department of Government Information
requiring news websites to register in 2011, and again more recently in 2016 to
the Ministry of Media and Information admitting that they had blocked 6
websites on grounds of character assassination and violation of privacy. Yet, as
then Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to
Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank La Rue noted, the right to freedom of
expression must be a norm on the Internet, and any limitations considered as an
exception to this norm. In particular, he expressed deep concern at the use of
blocking or filtering mechanisms for censorship.
Domestically, the legality of the TRC blocking this website has also been called
into question (this would fall under Section 53 of the Sri Lanka
Telecommunications Act, 1991.)
6 Dec

Thass@Thass283
Replying to @vikalpavoices and 10 others
How is TRC able to act without the knowledge of the media minister?

Gehan Gunatilleke@GehanDG
My reading of the Telecommunications Act is that the TRC has no power to block
a transmission without invoking judicial proceedings or obtaining an order from
the Minister. But Im sceptical of the value of an RTI request. A writ is better.
11:53 PM - Dec 6, 2017

11 Reply

11 Retweet

66 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
It is also worth reiterating that while the TRC released this information
to Groundviews, it did not do so to Maatram. Maatrams editor had to produce
his Identity Card in order for his request to be logged, as the Information Officer
did not know enough Tamil to read his name on the form provided.

Groundviews

@groundviews
Ridiculous situation highlighting language policy shortfalls - TRC unprepared to
process #RTI request made by @MaatramSL in
Tamil #lka https://twitter.com/MaatramSL/status/929968641017352192
2:36 AM - Nov 13, 2017
11 Reply
66 Retweets
1010 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
It appears that the language barrier led to Maatrams request on the same score
being rejected, despite the TRC possessing the information. This raises the
additional (and no less important) question: How many of the Government
departments are equipped to respond to RTI requests in Tamil?
The paper trail is clear, and leads as high as the President. This is a matter entirely
separate to the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the websites blocked and their
content. The fact that this practise remains, even post January 2015, must be
condemned as a barrier to media freedom and the freedom of expression.

Editors Note: Also read Online Freedom of Expression in Sri Lanka and A Tale
of Incompetence: RTI Reveals CMC Inaction Leading up to Meethotamulla
Tragedy
Posted by Thavam