A man’s voice is his last hope. It is his fundamental right to express opinions, views which may be dealt with counter views. That’s how dem...
A man’s voice is his last hope. It is his fundamental right to express opinions, views which may be dealt with counter views. That’s how democratic states work. The exchange of opinions and information between people and governments are a tool to make nation thrive.
Written By Aaira Hashmi
The flashy billboard in the city glittered bright with words like ‘protection’, ‘to ensure online safety’ , ‘rights’, ‘regulations’ ,‘safeguard’, ‘accountability’. The traveler from a foreign land looked mesmerized. Little did he know that the cacophony of streets whispered a contrasting narrative- one of repression.
‘The Statement of Objects and Reasons’ of most legislations in the world resembles the honeyed billboard. The PECA Act, 2025, an amendment to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 has left Pakistan mired in debate again. The question as to why it was the need of this hour can be addressed through stating that a watertight solution was required so as to fill any leaks which had been left in 2016 Act.
The traveler from a foreign land looked mesmerized. Little did he know that the cacophony of streets whispered a contrasting narrative- one of repression.
Walkthrough the document that got passed in in January 2025 reveals that four new regulatory bodies have been established.
1. Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA)
The Sections 2C & 2D allows absolutely any person to file a complaint against fake information and the authority to which it shall be submitted would have its Chairperson along with majority of its members appointed by the Federal Government. Critics see this highly objectionable and rightfully so, as how can transparency would now be showcased? Has Government already thought about it? Well if not, then the opponents are proved unanimously right as the proverb suggest, “No smoke without fire”
The ambit of ‘unlawful content’ has been expanded. 2R(g) provides for action against content which is fake or false or that has secured enough reasons to be believed so. The vagueness demands clarity as to what kind of reasons would be deemed enough to declare an information fake or false. 2R(h) further bans to release false news against esteemed members of Judiciary, Legislature, Armed Forces.
The annual reports would be presented to Parliament and will be made public to provide content to their hearts but to no avail as any law suit against the Government and the authorities would not be entertained. That is where the real suppression starts at least in minds of general public and specifically youth. The game of ‘ What if ’ commence. What if the information was true and it was made to look ‘false’ through the whole process? What if the author believed it to be true and acquired it through credible sources and the perpetrator like any other perpetrator wanted to shoot the messenger?
2. Social Media Complainant Council (SMCC)
3. Social Media Protection Tribunals
“The game of ‘ What if’ commence. What if the information was true and it was made to look ‘false’ through the whole process? What if the author believed it to be true and acquired it through credible sources and the perpetrator like any other perpetrator wanted to shoot the messenger?”
The headline-grabbing Section 26A of the Amendment PECA Act, 2025 which has proved to be a primary conversation-starter has criminalized the fake/false information. In other words, expressing personal opinions on X, other similar communication platforms including websites, presenting strong but dissenting or hard-hitting opinions have been officially regarded as punishable. One can be awarded penalty of 2 Million Rupees or three years of prison or both.
A fair observation let us think of a daily life situation. For instance, why anyone can’t play a victim card in this scenario? What if he had some personal score to settle with the other person? What if its only for ulterior motives or witch-hunt purposes? Notwithstanding the accuracy of the controversial post, the PECA Act is giving the protection to the victim even before he’s proved victim. That’s the real contention. The words ‘ he knows or has reason to believe to be false or fake’ implies that on the mere belief of any person or even a culprit, the news breaker can end up in jail for three years or has to pay millions. Where did the, not merely right but the fundamental right go? The right to free press and a right to use voice which our guiding constitution provides under Section 19 has been snatched blatantly. Their share in having a humanly benefit of doubt has almost vanished with this Act.
Notwithstanding the accuracy of the controversial post, the PECA Act is giving the protection to the victim even before he’s proved victim. That’s the real contention.
4. National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA)
The question of fact is to identify the miracle person/authority i.e. ‘ WHO’? Who would draw distinguishing line between free speech & hate speech? Who would decide the criterion of false speech and fake news, or mis-info or dis-info if all that is going to be decided is in hands and supervision of Federal Government? Is it a one man-show? If not, then why not go for a neutral body who has nothing to do with the Government? In the present scenario, it looks convenient for any prudent person to assume that information supporting Government and aligning with their standpoints would be regarded as good and valid information but any against would reliably be categorized as mis-info and di-info. That’s the criterion PECA has suited itself with. It would ultimately plant the seeds of distrust in hearts of wrongly affected as Pakistan has never been a golden stone in upholding procedural transparencies. The consequence of such reforms is that even if the actual perpetrators are caught, it would be so convenient for any person to judge or blame the government for its transparency. It will always remain questionable. PECA will just add more complexities to already disturbed course of things.
The journalists, media persons, Press Clubs, Unions, PFUJ alongside Human Rights Organizations are constantly voicing their concerns over each possible platform but the power corridors are likely made sound proof. It was PPP in 2016 who stood against the Act, today it is the same who’s giving monologues in defense. Today, it is PTI protesting, yesterday it was also them who off aired rival media outlets. It’s new wine in an old bottle situation. Actors change, script remains the same. The victims are always the audiences.
Who would decide the criterion of false speech and fake news, or mis-info or dis-info if all that is going to be decided is in hands and supervision of Federal Government? Is it a one man-show? If not, then why not go for a ………
A man’s voice is his last hope. It is his fundamental right to express opinions, views which may be dealt with counter views. That’s how democratic states work. The exchange of opinions and information between people and governments are a tool to make nation thrive. Criminalizing and imposing heavy penalties makes the people more vulnerable and open to gaslighting. Our state and institutions need to decide. Are they too shallow or weak to take a kitchen’s heat? This takes us to what US President, Mr. Donald Trump thinks of the mere phrase ‘Freedom of Speech’. He sees ‘fake news’ as news which is against him and his administration. In many presidential campaigns, he used this phrase to discredit any media coverage he deemed unfavorable. Our leaders must not become like him as Generation Z, Alphas have very little temperament for tolerating such suppression tactics. They have the capacity to outlive and outgrow them.
It was PPP in 2016 who stood against the Act, today it is the same who’s giving monologues in defense. Today, it is PTI protesting, yesterday it was also them who off aired rival media outlets. It’s new wine in an old bottle situation. Actors change, script remains the same. The victims are always the audiences.
Defamation Ordinances are the best solution for tackling hurtful interactions on internet but what’s far problematic is letting the government decide what is fake news and what is not a fake news. This will further stretch the gaps between general public and the well-wisher government if they say so. If PECA,2025 was really a protection for public and a consequence of good will of government, protection never has to feel this stifling or suffocating.
