Why Nepal's Problematic Social Media Bill Threatens Free Speech
If passed, Nepalese authorities could exert political control over online speech under the guise of promoting social media responsibility.
A legislative proposal in Nepal—Social Media Bill number 2081—would require online platforms and social media sites to obtain licenses from national authorities in order to operate. It also introduces significant and potentially arbitrary restrictions on what can be posted online. In response, several civil society and human rights organizations have raised concerns that the proposal threatens online free speech.
A few weeks ago, UNESCO, in response to a request from the Secretariat of the Federal Parliament of Nepal, invited me to prepare an expert review of the social media licensing bill. In that review, I assessed the bill’s alignment with international human rights standards and provided actionable recommendations to ensure the legislation upholds freedom of expression, access to information, and digital rights.
It is important to note that Nepal’s commitment to human rights and the protection of freedom of expression is not only based on the ratification of treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Those commitments can also be found in its national Constitution of 2015, which was one of the main pillars of the democratic transition process and enshrines fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy.
I presented the review's main findings during a workshop held on March 5 and 6, 2025, in Kathmandu. The workshop included more than 35 members from the National Assembly and House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament, as well as UNESCO representatives.
But as I explain in the review, the bill does not just contain problematic provisions; instead, the main concern is the systemic aspects of the proposed legislation as a whole.
Here is an overview of the bill's main issues:
1. Lack of Clear Scope
The bill refers to “social media” in its title but also to “digital platforms” in its provisions. It also appears to include editorial services such as blogs, online publications (electronic press), online radio and television services, or editorially controlled online video services (such as Netflix) as activities within the scope of the legislation.
This lack of coherence and consistency needs to be addressed by adopting a definition of digital platforms aligned with international standards. In other words, it should apply to digital services that facilitate the interaction between different users. The bill could also refer to the specific category of online platforms/social media services as digital platforms that engage in specific activities, such as data collection, platform design, content moderation, and content curation.
But to avoid infringing on press freedom, the bill should not include media activities and media platforms since they must be separately regulated as media or as direct forms of expression. Digital and online platforms, on the other hand, should only include intermediaries for the dissemination of speech created and published by third parties.
2. Overly Broad Content Restrictions
Even though this law is supposed to establish a regime applicable to the governance and activities of digital platforms/social media, it dedicates a significant number of provisions to impose very severe content restrictions directly on users.
These restrictions refer to specific areas, such as content that, for example,
“engage[s] in activities that harm the reputation or dignity of any individual with malicious intent, including the use of derogatory language, creating trolls of images and audiovisual content, engaging in abusive, defamatory speech, or participating in actions that qualify as hate speech”,
“spread[s] false or misleading information, or distort facts to mislead others”,
“disseminate[s], promote[s], or manipulate[s] obscene words, images, symbols, videos, audio, false or misleading information, or spread such information through distortion, propaganda, or comments”,
or “engage[s] in or cause[s] to engage in any act that adversely affects Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, national security, national unity, independence, dignity, or national interests, or that harms harmonious relations between federal units.”
The UN Human Rights Committee (General Comment 34) has emphasized that laws restricting the right to freedom of expression must be formulated with sufficient precision to “enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly.” Also, laws “may not confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution.”
Furthermore, when a potentially legitimate ground for restricting freedom of expression is invoked (human dignity, national security, others’ rights), it must be “demonstrated in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat”.
Restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality: they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function while at the same time being the least intrusive instrument amongst those that might achieve their protective function. This avoids creating a so-called “chilling effect,” i.e., a climate where speakers self-censor out of fear of repression.
The content limitations highlighted in Nepal’s bill would thus not meet the strict requirements established by applicable international standards. Beyond the lack of legal certainty and in terms of necessity and legitimacy, the broad limitations mentioned above cannot be considered acceptable causes for the limitation of the right to freedom of expression online under international standards. Additionally, references to defamation, insult, harassment, and other types of content or behavior may overlap with existing and more precisely defined general categories already established and regulated under national legislation, thus creating confusion in terms of interpretation and enforcement.
3. The Potential for Political and Arbitrary Enforcement
The bill attributes the very important social media “regulator” role to “the government department responsible for information technology under the Government of Nepal.” These responsibilities include areas such as licensing (including revocation), the prohibition of social media operations, content monitoring, content removals, and referrals to other authorities.
UNESCO Guidelines establish that States have an obligation to “ensure that any regulatory authority that deals with digital platforms content management, regardless of the theme, is structured as independent, shielded from political and economic interests, and has external review systems in place.” Therefore, the bill clearly violates international standards by establishing a government body as the main regulatory authority in the field of digital platforms.
Another important area for concern is that digital platforms are subject to a strict and potentially arbitrary process of license granting, license renovation, and license revocation, which also fall under the responsibility of the competent Ministry. In particular, the criteria and requirements associated with these processes are extremely vague and open to interpretation. They also contain criteria that, without any further definition or explanation, can be arbitrarily used to label or restrict legitimate and protected political speech (notions such as “peace,” “security,” “unity,” “independence,” “dignity,” or “national interests”).
Lastly, they delegate the interpretation and enforcement of such concepts and obligations to a non-independent, politically controlled body that also has the power to adopt additional “directives” in the same areas.
In practice, all these requirements constitute prior restraint and fail to meet the three-part test demanded by international human rights law, which prohibits vague, arbitrary, and politically motivated regulations and enforcement.
4. Prohibition on Anonymous Speech
The prohibition on creating or using an anonymous or fake identity or on assuming another person’s identity on social media also violates international human rights standards. Again, according to the criteria set by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression protect secure online communication, specifically by encryption or anonymity. Therefore, general prohibitions or restrictions on expressing ideas and opinions in an anonymous manner or through a pseudonym would be incompatible with international human rights law.
States must also “show that any restriction on encryption or anonymity is necessary to achieve the legitimate objective,” where “necessary” means something more than “useful,” “reasonable,” or “desirable.” Also, once the legitimate objective has been achieved, the restriction may no longer be applied. For these reasons, proposals to impose restrictions on anonymity “should be subject to public comment” and must incorporate strong procedural and judicial safeguards “to guarantee the due process rights of any individual whose use of encryption or anonymity is subject to restriction.”
Therefore, only a court, tribunal, or other independent adjudicatory body can supervise the application of the restriction on a case-by-case basis. For these reasons, the broad obligations included in the bill in this area are also incompatible with applicable human rights standards.
Final Thoughts
If Nepal adopts the bill as written, authorities will have a very powerful tool to control dissent and stifle the free dissemination of information, ideas, and opinions. As a result, Nepal would align itself with similar authoritarian approaches to online content regulation in the region, such as Bangladesh, Turkey, Russia, China, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka. Beyond violating human rights standards, these kinds of laws have only increased social discontent and political tensions in these countries.
The Legislative Division of the National Assembly is supposed to start a detailed discussion of UNESCO’s review. The final version of the legal text is in the hands of the legislative branch, which has the democratic legitimacy to decide the kind of law that will govern the country’s online space. However, it is important to stress that Nepalese lawmakers now have the opportunity to put aside any authoritarian or restrictive approaches and adopt a piece of legislation that properly protects the fundamental right of Nepalese citizens to express themselves in the online space freely.
It was precisely through the widespread exercise of the right to free speech and protest that Nepal ended the civil conflict and restored its democracy, reinstating the Parliament, abolishing the monarchy, and transiting towards a federal republic. Now, it is time to bring all those democratic aspirations and freedoms to the digital space.
Joan Barata is a Senior Fellow at The Future of Free Speech and a Fellow of the Program on Platform Regulation at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center. He works on freedom of expression, media regulation, and intermediary liability issues.