HE recent passage by the Senate of the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill 2024, which seeks to increase penalties for `obscenity-related` offences, warrants further consideration. Under the changes proposed, the maximum prison term for producing or distributing obscene material is being increased to two years, while public acts deemed `obscene`, including songs and performances, could invite even heavier punishment. Though the Constitution does mandate the state to discourage obscenity under Article 37(g), the real challenge has always lain in defining what `obscene` really means. Who decides what is offensive or harmful? It is worth noting that laws are already in place to penalise obscene publications. Expanding them without tightening definitions merely risks creating a more repressive environment for public expression, which is why the bill needs to be thoroughly discussed; otherwise, such legislation could very likely be weaponised against not only dissenting voices but also artists, performers, writers and journalists.

There is a long precedent of morality laws being misused in this manner, and it is, therefore, prudent to be wary.

It appears that our lawmakers want to be seen to be doing something about the proliferation of different types of content on social platforms, such as TikTok and Instagram, which may not always conform to the sensibilities of dominant social groups.

Perversely, this legislative effort seems to be aimed at achieving the same `clout` that those they accuse of spreading `obscenity` also seek. Legislation regulating morality is always a delicate matter that requires careful handling and foresight, lest it do more harm than good. There is little evidence that this bill has undergone any scrutiny. It must now be debated thoroughly in the National Assembly, with input from legal experts, civil society and media representatives. We must avoid enshrining vague moral standards into criminal law without rigorous scrutiny.

History tells us that such laws hurt society more than protect it.