Post and Perish: A Chilling Reminder for the Digital Age

When words online turn into a death sentence, the world takes notice. Tunisia’s latest verdict — sentencing a 51-year-old man, Saber Chouchen, to death for Facebook posts — reads like a warning etched in pixels. His so-called “crime” was sharing critical comments about President Kais Saied, under a sweeping cybercrime law that claims to protect “national security” but, in effect, punishes dissent.

Human rights advocates called it “a dangerous escalation,” yet the case is less about one man and more about a rising global pattern: governments tightening digital nooses under the banner of “online safety.”

For Sri Lanka, this story lands uncomfortably close. The Online Safety Act, passed amid controversy, promises to protect citizens from online harm — but its vague wording leaves room for broad interpretation. What counts as “false information”? Who decides what “insults” a public authority?

The Tunisian case shows how quickly “safety” can slide into silence. One man, poor and largely voiceless, reposted a few lines — and now faces the ultimate punishment. His posts didn’t trend. They didn’t mobilize mobs. But they did offend the powerful.

This isn’t just about Tunisia. It’s about every society drafting laws that touch the keyboard and the conscience. Between freedom and fear lies a single click.

Sri Lanka’s own Online Safety Act deserves close, cautious reading — not because the nation doesn’t need protection from online harm, but because the thin line between regulating hate and regulating opinion can vanish faster than a deleted post.

In the age of “post and perish,” one truth remains: when the law begins to guard power instead of people, every keystroke becomes a risk.