Q&A: Legal activist slams Pakistan's 'draconian' social media law

A customer looks at a mobile phone at a shop in Rawalpindi, Pakistan July 4, 2017. REUTERS/Caren Firouz
interview

A customer looks at a mobile phone at a shop in Rawalpindi, Pakistan July 4, 2017. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

What’s the context?

Nighat Dad, a digital rights campaigner and member of Meta's Oversight Board, worries Pakistan's new law could gag free speech

  • Pakistan passes new law to regulate social media
  • Journalists and campaigners warn free press, free speech at risk
  • Law should be challenged in court, says digital rights activist

KARACHI, Pakistan - Pakistan's new law regulating social media content has sparked angry protests from journalists and campaign groups which say it curbs press freedom, while digital rights activist Nighat Dad warned the law is so vague and broad it could target anyone.

Parliament passed the amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) on Jan. 24 and the president signed it into law last week. A legal petition challenging the law has been filed with Pakistan's top court and another with Sindh province's high court.

The new regulations will set up a social media regulatory authority, with its own investigation agency and tribunals. These will be able to try and punish offenders with prison sentences of up to three years and fines of two million rupees ($7,200) for dissemination of "false or fake" information.

While the government has said the law was introduced to block fake and false news on social media, the head of the country's main journalist union said it had not been consulted and that the law was intended to gag free speech.

Context spoke to Nighat Dad, a lawyer and the executive director of the Digital Rights Foundation in Pakistan, to learn more about how the new law could impact free speech. Dad is also a member of Meta's Oversight Board, which is funded by the social media giant but operates independently.

What do you think of the new law?

The PECA was first introduced in 2016 with the aim of addressing cybercrimes such as stalking, online harassment, and financial fraud. It was viewed with scepticism as many believed it could be used to curb freedom of speech and silence dissent or political opposition.

However, the latest amendments have turned PECA into something far more draconian.

The updated version of the law criminalises the spread of "fake" or "false" content, targets users who post material that harms someone's reputation, and broadens the definition of a complainant to include anyone who accuses you of spreading false news or defamation.

The law should be challenged in the high court by the people of Pakistan because of the unconstitutional nature of the provisions in it.

People wait outside a National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) centre in Lahore, Pakistan
Go DeeperPakistan's digital ID card keeps millions locked out
A soldier uses a mobile phone as he sit inside a military vehicle outside Myanmar's Central Bank during a protest against the military coup, in Yangon, Myanmar, February 15, 2021
Go DeeperDisinformation on social media the 'wild west' of democracy
Supporters of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, carrying a bamboo stick and a slingshot, use their mobile phones as they guard the entrance of Khan's house, in Lahore, Pakistan March 17, 2023. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro
Go DeeperInternet shutdowns: Are we likely to see more in 2024?

Why have the amendments sparked anger?

The new law will be enforced by four government-appointed authorities: the Social Media Protection and Regulation Authority, the Media Complaint Council, the Social Media Protection Tribunal, and the Investigation Agency - each of which will have sweeping powers.

My concern is that the members of these bodies, who will be handpicked by the ruling government, could easily abuse their authority, essentially acting as judge, jury and executioner.

The whole process of nomination raises serious red flags about transparency and accountability.

The amendment that criminalises fake and false news is highly problematic because the definition of what constitutes "fake" or "false" content is both broad and vague.

For example, authorities could take action against individuals or groups for criticising the judiciary, armed forces, or legislators - and the penalties are severe.

What is really concerning is that this could spell the end for quality investigative journalism.     

Journalists often cannot reveal their sources, but the way the law is now written, they will be forced to prove the truth of their stories - something that can only happen if they expose their sources. It is a real dilemma for them.

Who else could be impacted by this new law?

Each and every one of us will be affected, including the unsuspecting "forwarders" of content.

For instance, anyone who shares content on a WhatsApp group - whether knowingly or unknowingly - and can be deemed false or damaging to someone's reputation could find themselves facing accusations and prosecution.

Moreover, this will affect political party supporters, journalists, human rights defenders as well as marginalised groups, women, and those from minority faiths.

I am particularly concerned that women who face online harassment may hesitate to come forward.

With online harassment under the new amended law, the person charged can turn around and say it was not him or that his account was hacked, and that it was a false allegation levelled by the victim who was trying to harm his reputation.

In Pakistan, which has a very patriarchal system and hostile law enforcement agency, it is very easy to silence victims.

A shopkeeper plays with his mobile phone at a phone market in Rawalpindi, Pakistan July 4, 2017. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

A shopkeeper plays with his mobile phone at a phone market in Rawalpindi, Pakistan July 4, 2017. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

A shopkeeper plays with his mobile phone at a phone market in Rawalpindi, Pakistan July 4, 2017. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

Why is the government doing this?

The government has repeatedly claimed that it is working to protect women, female journalists, and politicians who face the brunt of online harassment.

I am not questioning their intentions ... (but) criminalising people's right to free expression is not the right way to regulate these platforms.

The responsibility should fall on (social media) platforms themselves to ensure accountability, and this can be achieved in a more constructive and civil way, rather than through punitive, criminal measures.

Critics say the amendments were passed without due consultation. Is that a matter of concern?

I am shocked by how quickly these amendments were introduced and how the bill was fast-tracked into law within just a week.

Meanwhile, a far more critical bill on data protection continues to stall. This shows that when there is real intent and political will, things can get done.

What is troubling though is that there were no consultations with stakeholders. It almost feels as though the government has a specific political agenda, possibly aimed at countering disinformation from a particular party.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. 

($1 = 278.7500 Pakistani rupees)

(Reporting by Zofeen T. Ebrahim, Editing by Annie Banerji and Ana Nicolaci da Costa.)


Context is powered by the Thomson Reuters Foundation Newsroom.

Our Standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles


Tags

  • Polarisation
  • Content moderation
  • Internet shutdowns
  • Tech regulation
  • Social media
  • Data rights




Get our data & surveillance newsletter. Free. Every week.

By providing your email, you agree to our Privacy Policy.


Latest on Context