THE prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), passed by the Parliament in 2016, was necessitated by the absence of any laws to deal with the growing threats of cybercrime and online threats of the 21st Century to our digital domains and national security.
It was also intended to provide an enabling and secure environment for investment in IT, e-commerce and e-payment systems at home and abroad. However, this Act didn’t address the grave dangers of fake news, spread through unregulated and unbridled social media tools and platforms through which people’s minds were constantly being polluted and hijacked.
The aims were to undermine state institutions, corrode the government’s writ, and defame individuals for personal agendas and political motives. All this being done behind the shields of “free speech and expression” and taking advantage of our weak defamation laws. The PECA Amendment Act 2025 is intended to correct these serious inadequacies. Thus, law-abiding citizens who do not indulge in such crimes have no reason to be afraid of or to oppose it. Yet, regrettably, this is happening.
This reminds me of what Voltaire said three centuries back: ‘I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to death your right to say it’. I admire this quintessential pronouncement by Voltaire in support of the rights of freedom of speech and expression. Still, ironically, he was exiled in 1717 by the French government for slanderous poetry, verifying that this autonomy carries with it onerous consequences if it isn’t used responsibly.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also recognizes that this liberty may be restricted for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security, public order, health, or morals. Therefore, free expression with costly adverse local or international repercussions could surely be bad. More so, when every medium is virtually present in one’s hand in the form of smartphones, which bring forth unparalleled challenges and opportunities for everyone. Acting as an autonomous power centre in reciprocal competition with others, social media wields immense powers as it determines the fate of politicians, their electorates and governments.
If it is used indiscriminately to leverage ideological, political or economic power for itself, it can trample the people’s fundamental rights and cause chaos in the society. Media persons and owners will advocate self-censorship to prevent this, but this may be impractical to enforce, owing to their distinct viewpoints and self-interest in the matter and their inability to align their views with public and national interests or divergent political beliefs. Thus, the state alone has the locus stand and resources to balance freedom of speech and expression and the essential vigilance on the information sector to protect the public interest.
In Pakistan, too, Article 19 of the constitution guarantees ‘the right to freedom of speech and expression— ‘subject to –restrictions– in the interest of -glory of Islam or – integrity, security or defence of Pakistan— friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or — contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence’. Correct interpretation and respecting these boundaries are the duties of all citizens. Besides, enforcing the recommendations of the Media Review Commission (MRC), (established in 2013, through a Supreme Court order), particularly the voluntary Code of Ethics of the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE), will be necessary. This (a) forbids ‘biased reporting or publication of unverified material, and — expression of –conjecture as — fact and generalization based on the behaviour of a single or small number of individuals—‘ (b) prohibits financial or other inducements that can mask the truth. (c) Endorses prompt rectification of harmful inaccuracies through apologies that receive due prominence or afford the right of reply to persons criticized significant issues. Equally important is framing appropriate criteria and rules for granting media licenses, particularly for social media usage, to obviate the risks of shady, opinionated individuals, private money lenders, illiterate, rich people or outlaws obtaining permission for the purpose.
License approval benchmarks must include the education, training, and experience of journalists working in the media. However, Since the MRC did not suggest a remedy for violating journalistic ethos, the government has all the right to do this now, with inputs from domain experts and established media houses. The purpose should be to curb sensationalism, yellow journalism or negativity that could scare investors, hurt the economy, bring religious disharmony, disturb societal cohesion or discredit state institutions. Alongside oversight of the registered media, the government must not buckle under pressure on the regulation measures and rules for fast, proliferating internet media in Pakistan. This will also endorse the ‘Citizens Protection (Against Online Harm) Rules, 2020’.
Further, media and religious leaders must educate people on Quranic injunctions and the Prophet’s (PBUH) teachings on truthfulness. The state must then enforce accountability for violations of the law. This is crucial to curbing the unchecked spread of social media, which threatens individuals and national security. Without decisive action, reputations built over decades could be destroyed in minutes, leaving lasting scars. Past incidents have shown how such vulnerabilities can imperil state functioning. Urgent, collective efforts—through the newly established Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, media stakeholders and government engagement—are needed to safeguard society, the state and the media.
—The writer is the former president of NDU Islamabad.
(genraza@yahoo.com)
