Hate and freedom

As we mark World Press Freedom Day, the state has invoked Section 27 of the Pemra Amendment Act 2007. The broadcast media has been stopped from airing speech or material that may harm national interest. A show cause notice has been issued to 14 channels that broadcast the MQM chief Altaf Hussain’s speech which had very obviously attacked the army with much else in it that was objectionable. Most of us in the country, indeed all of us, found Altaf’s words and language distasteful, even reprehensible. The response from Pemra, following orders from the information ministry is then not difficult to understand. But knee-jerk reactions are hardly ever wise; they often create more problems even when they are well intentioned, and this is what can be feared in this case too. Restrictions placed by external bodies on the media are never a very welcome sight. They set dangerous precedents, just as this measure has done, even if, seen in isolation, it seemed like the right thing to do. But things do not function in isolation, and other steps could be far more dangerous. There is already a threat of this in the air. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2015 approved by the National Assembly standing committee on IT grants the PTA extraordinary powers to remove, or prevent access to, an extremely broad range of content. This includes taking such actions if it is seen as necessary to ‘uphold the glory of Islam’, the integrity of security and defence, public order, decency and friendly relations with foreign states, and to prevent contempt of court.
The implications of such a law, which could be passed by parliament, are extremely dangerous and could infringe on all kinds of rights and privacy of citizens – extending even to their use of phones and other devices connected to the internet. It is significant that the government reacted in response to the act of petitioning the courts by a private organisation which challenged the right of government committees to oversee internet use or ban websites. Such draconian measures push us further and further to turning into a state over which Big Brother watches every move, every action by the media, even every lifting of a finger over a computer keyboard. Media analysts and rights activists had for a long time warned television channels to come up with a code of conduct of their own to regulate broadcast content. Their failure to do so is one reason for Pemra acting as it has now. Another thing that has to be pointed out is that the understanding of ‘hate speech’ has to be wider. We do not want our army to be insulted in any way; we do not want it to be pulled down into the dirty world of politics. But hate also exists in other spheres and we see this put on air again and again, against many different groups. This too is unacceptable. A fair and judicious response to the speech that has unnecessarily brought the media into the dock would be to move, fairly and judiciously, against the maker of the speech under the existing laws, instead of scapegoating the media on these issues. The media must demonstrate the responsibility to regulate itself. When it fails in its task, others will inevitably step in with consequences for the hard-won space for freedom of expression.