Freedom of expression

Recently, Pakistan’s National Assembly passed the PECA Amendment Bill 2025 and the Digital Nation Pakistan Bill 2025, which have been met with criticism and concern from various quarters. The government has been accused of attempting to restrict freedom of expression and target its opponents through these laws. A detailed analysis of these bills, their potential benefits and drawbacks, and their impact on freedom of expression suggests that under the guise of controlling unchecked free speech, these laws might also suppress legitimate freedom of expression, which is essential for holding institutions accountable.

Under the PECA Amendment Bill 2025, the establishment of a “Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority” has been proposed. This authority will be responsible for ensuring the protection and rights of social media users, registering social media platforms, setting standards, and removing illegal content. According to the bill, spreading fake news can result in up to three years of imprisonment, a fine of up to PKR 2 million, or both. The definition of illegal content includes anti-Islamic material, content against national security or defence, fake or misleading reports, material against the judiciary or armed forces, content that disrupts public order, obscenity, contempt of court, immoral content, and incitement to crime.

Although specific details about the Digital Nation Pakistan Bill 2025 are limited, its primary objective appears to be strengthening the country’s digital infrastructure and promoting the digital economy. This may include measures for protecting digital rights, regulating online services, and enhancing digital literacy.

A crucial question arises: Pakistan already has the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), which oversees television and radio broadcasts. However, PEMRA’s jurisdiction is limited to electronic media, and it does not effectively regulate social media or online platforms. With the growing use of the internet and social media, the need for specific laws to curb fake news, hate speech, and illegal activities online has become apparent.

The PECA Amendment Bill 2025 proposes the establishment of the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, which will be specifically responsible for monitoring and regulating social media platforms. Additionally, the formation of a National Cybercrime Investigation Agency has been suggested to investigate illegal activities on social media. However, the approval of the PECA Amendment Bill 2025 and the Digital Nation Pakistan Bill 2025 raises concerns: why were these new laws deemed necessary? Were the risks that these laws aim to address not anticipated at the time of PEMRA’s establishment? The journalistic community is actively protesting against these new regulations.

The government argues that these laws will help control the dissemination of illegal, unethical, and anti-state content, which could be beneficial for social harmony and national security. Strict penalties have been introduced to curb the spread of fake news and misinformation, potentially reducing social unrest. The registration of social media platforms and the establishment of content standards could facilitate the monitoring of online content and the protection of users’ rights.

However, it is also a reality that the broad definitions and strict penalties within these laws pose a threat to freedom of expression, which could contradict democratic values. The government may use these laws to target its opponents and suppress dissenting voices, which could be detrimental to political freedom. Journalistic organisations have condemned these laws, viewing them as a threat to press freedom, which could limit the effectiveness of independent media.

The implementation of these laws may have negative repercussions on freedom of expression. Due to their broad and vague definitions, legitimate criticism and opinion could be classified as illegal, increasing the tendency for self-censorship. Furthermore, there is a risk that the government might misuse these laws to suppress political opponents and critical voices, which could be harmful to a democratic society.

The objectives of the PECA Amendment Bill 2025 and the Digital Nation Pakistan Bill 2025 include preventing illegal content and regulating social media—both seemingly positive steps. However, due to their broad definitions, harsh penalties, and the potential for governmental misuse, these laws could negatively impact freedom of expression, press freedom, and political liberties. It is imperative that these laws be reviewed, and that balanced legislation be enacted in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including the media, civil society, and human rights organisations, to establish an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and national security.

Although PEMRA exists to monitor electronic media, new laws were felt to be needed to effectively control online and social media platforms. However, after the passage of the PECA Amendment Bill 2025, journalists and freedom of expression advocates are expressing serious concerns about it. Global journalism organizations are likely to join the protest and raise their voices in support of Pakistani journalists.

After the passage of the PECA Amendment Bill 2025, Pakistani journalism organizations have announced nationwide protests against it. On the call of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), journalists took out rallies in various cities including Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi and termed the law a threat to press freedom.

At the global level, organizations working to protect the rights of journalists and freedom of expression such as Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists are likely to join the protest. These organizations have been raising their voices in the past about laws and measures against journalists in Pakistan and have been issuing statements to put pressure on the government. If Pakistani journalism organizations contact these international organizations, it is possible that these organizations will issue statements in support of Pakistani journalists on this issue and highlight this issue at the international level. It is worth noting that this same law was tried to be introduced by the government of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in 2022, which was strongly protested by the then opposition parties. At that time, the PML-N, the PPP and other parties had termed the law “authoritarian” and challenged it in the courts. But today, when these same parties are in power, they are trying to implement the same law vigorously, while Imran Khan’s party PTI is protesting against it. This shows that politicians in Pakistan always try to take advantage of such oppressive laws for the benefit of their government and the continuation of power. Keeping in mind this double standard of the country’s politicians, it is necessary to look at the benefits and disadvantages of this bill from the perspective of public interest rather than government interest so that a proper balance can be established between freedom of expression and national security. The powerful should also remember that as soon as the temporary intoxication of power wears off, the chain of consequences of actions begins, because time is a great teacher, but it takes some time.

Agha Shorash Kashmiri, a great journalist and poet of Pakistan, wrote a letter to Syed Abul Ala Maududi, in which he said, “Maulana, in human history, falsehood has always triumphed.” What Maulana wrote in response to this letter is worth listening to.

Understand this thing about truth well that it is not the truth itself, it is the name of such permanent values that are absolutely correct and truthful. Even if the whole world deviates from it, it is still the truth because its being right is not conditional on the condition that the world accepts it, the world’s acceptance or rejection is not the criterion for deciding right and wrong. If the world does not accept the truth, then the truth is not a failure. Rather, the world that did not accept it and accepted falsehood failed. The nation that rejected them and made the worshippers of falsehood its leaders failed. There is no doubt that in the world, what works is what people generally accept and what does not work is what people generally reject, but the rejection and acceptance of people is by no means the criterion of truth and falsehood. If the majority of people want to wander and stumble in the darkness, then they should wander and stumble happily. Our job is to light a lamp in the darkness anyway, and we will continue to do this until our last breath. We seek refuge with Allah from being among those who go astray or mislead. It is a favour of Allah that He has given us the ability to light a lamp in the darkness. The gratitude for this favour is that we die lighting a lamp.