Thread by @h_liyan

The proposed "Online Safety" bill can be interpreted ambiguously and applied selectively to imprison average people for discussing average sociopolitical issues, for up to 5 years. Disclaimer: personal interpretation; not a lawyer. 1/9

If the govt. deems what you said is a "false statement" (??) and deems it could lead to a riot by someone else, you could be imprisoned for up to 3 years, *even if the riot doesn't take place*. 2/9

If your discussion of a religious matter offends or outrages someone, you may be liable to imprisonment up to three years if the govt. deems you made a "false statement". 3/9

If someone feels insulted or provoked by something you said, and then they go onto commit a crime, *you* could be imprisoned for up to three years, if the govt. deems what you said to be a "false statement". 4/9

If you critically discuss orders given to military personnel, or discuss the negative social impact of such orders, you could be imprisoned for up to seven years if the govt. deems that your discussion contains "false statements". 5/9

If you fail to comply with the commission's directive within 24 hours, you could be imprisoned up to five years. There is no apparent way for you to appeal or file a grievance. 6/9

If you make a payment to an organisation that maintains a website that the commission declares as a location making "prohibited statements", you could be imprisoned up to 5 years, or face a fine up to 5 million rupees. On second offence, this could go up to 10 years + 10mil. 7/9

You may not be able to file a case against the commission if it believes that it acted in "good faith". Even if the commission applies this law selectively to different classes of people, it may be protected from prosecution if it is believed it acted in "good faith". 8/9

Even if you actually do not commit the offence, simply being in communication with someone who did, could open you up to imprisonment up to half the maximum term of the offence. 9/9