Online Safety Commission Explains Rationale Amid Public Debate

The Online Safety Commission (OSC) has responded to prominent lawyer Richard Naidu’s criticism of its recent warning to the media, clarifying its position and reaffirming its commitment to press freedom and public interest journalism.

In a statement issued following public backlash over its remarks on the circulation of video footage involving a senior public official in a nightclub altercation, the OSC acknowledged the constitutional rights of the media and public under Section 17 of the Fijian Constitution.

“We fully agree that media freedom and the public’s right to information are fundamental rights,” the Commission said. “The Commission does not, and will not, seek to suppress legitimate journalism or public interest reporting.”

The Commission emphasized that its concern was not with the media’s role in reporting on matters of public accountability, but with how such content was being reshared online—sometimes accompanied by harmful commentary or threats. It noted that while Section 24 of the Online Safety Act 2018 requires an “intent to cause harm,” its role is to assess context carefully to identify whether that intent is present.

“Our duty… is to uphold protections against harmful digital communications, especially where content may be used to incite harassment, encourage abuse, or be weaponized beyond fair reporting,” it explained.

The OSC thanked Naidu for raising the issue and said it would review its public messaging to ensure greater clarity moving forward.

“This dialogue reinforces the importance of striking a balance: protecting freedom of expression while also preventing the misuse of online platforms to cause undue harm… Your right to question, criticize, and contribute to these important conversations is part of a healthy democracy—and we welcome it.”

Responding to the statement, Naidu commented via social media:

“A gracious response from the Online Safety Commission. Signs of progress I think. Three years ago I would probably be under arrest by now for breaching the Public Order Act or something.”