To ban or not to ban: that has always been the question. Regardless of which party has been in power, or the problem faced, the government’s knee-jerk reaction to even the slightest of discomfort has been to shutdown internet services and block access to social media platforms whether it is Twitter (now known as 'X') and YouTube, and now the suggested blanket ban on social media.
Punjab Information Minister Azma Bukhari recently suggested that social media must be blocked if it cannot be regulated. Her suggestion comes in the wake of her fake videos which were circulated on the internet and against which a case is pending before federal investigative authorities and the Lahore High Court. However, the shutdown of the internet and banning of social media platforms which we see today are not new and at their core, are premised on Pakistan’s intolerance of freedom of speech and expression.
At various points in Pakistan's history, the country has chosen censorship over protecting its citizens’ right to free speech or expression. The question is not whether free speech can be banned or regulated by the state but whether the state really ought to intervene to regulate or clamp down on speech online. The pressing issue in the digital space and the problem the provincial information minister should be concerned with is that of misinformation and disinformation. The question framed in today’s context then is: should a democratic government, which ought to uphold free speech and expression per the Constitution, regulate or go a step further and ban social media outlets because of the lack of veracity of the content uploaded?
The suggested ban does not appear to reflect genuine state concerns regarding national security, terrorism or incitement to violence. It seems, instead, to be a smokescreen to justify the activation of the repressive state apparatus to stifle political dissent.
This question becomes especially pertinent when we realise that certain acts or speech, regardless of the platform they are put across – whether print or digital – are already regulated and sanctioned by the state. Various laws including the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, the Defamation Ordinance 2002, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, already criminalise any action or speech which falls foul of their provisions, regardless of whether such speech is carried online or not. This includes promoting enmity between different groups, sectarian hatred, promoting, encouraging, funding, and planning terrorism, sedition, anti-state speech/action, defamation, obscenity, hate speech, and unauthorised use of identity information, among others. In a country where speech and expression are already so heavily regulated and where concerns of national security are addressed through pre-existing legislation, why is there a need to further restrict the speech and expression of Pakistani citizens?
The suggested ban does not appear to reflect genuine state concerns regarding national security, terrorism or incitement to violence. Instead, it seems to be a smokescreen to justify the activation of the repressive state apparatus to stifle political dissent. The state agenda seems to be: see no “evil”, hear no “evil”, do no “evil”.
But what about the misinformation and disinformation circulating on the internet? Shouldn’t citizens be protected from deep fakes and fake news, and shouldn’t social media sites that provide a platform for disinformation be banned? In response, allow me to ask this: is banning social media a reasonable restriction on the citizens’ right to free speech and expression when faced with misinformation and disinformation? Any restriction imposed should be such that it is the minimum to preserve the public interest. An outright ban on social media, and through its speech, cannot possibly be the bare minimum measure necessary to safeguard the public interest. A complete ban does bear excessively on our right to freedom of speech. So, does regulation of misinformation and disinformation, outside of the realm of what has already been criminalised or legislated upon, constitute a reasonable restriction?
The risk that such regulation carries is obvious and oft-repeated – regulation is just code for state-sponsored and approved content being circulated. It threatens to push to the periphery narratives of marginalised communities and fringe voices. It also restricts innovation and development in the digital space. This argument is further bolstered by the fact that social media sites have their codes of practice that users must abide by, which include guidelines on hate speech, supporting terror activities, carrying out unlawful acts, etc. So not only are certain words/acts already criminalised by the state of Pakistan, but social media sites themselves attempt to regulate the content being posted online. Posts and information that violate such codes can be, and often are, taken down by social media sites. We have also had instances where government authorities have reached out to social media platforms to block access to certain accounts and content within Pakistan.
In the “marketplace of ideas”, where a plethora of thoughts are exchanged and conversations had, misinformation and disinformation inevitably float around. It has also become increasingly apparent that misinformation and disinformation can be problematic, even when they are not illegal. However, censorship and stricter regulation are not the answer. The government of Pakistan opts for the easy way out when it chooses to muzzle speech, instead of initiating digital literacy campaigns, empowering journalists to tackle misinformation and disinformation, and researching innovative methods to foster an online space that allows for various voices and narratives as opposed to just one.