Censoring cyberspace

The controversial Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill has become a reality. After the Senate cleared the bill, the National Assembly passed the bill on Thursday, with few parliamentarians voting against a bill that threatens the future of free speech online. The problems with the bill are legion, starting with the secrecy with which it was introduced, allowing little input from those who are most likely to be affected by it. Throughout the drawn-out process of passing the bill, internet rights activists were deliberatively excluded and marginalised from the process. The end process is a law which leaves far too much open to the interpretation of the authorities and could end up criminalising political dissent in cyberspace. There are many examples of clauses that could be used to target political opponents. For example, there is a penalty of three years for ‘spoofing’, which the government claims will be used only for those who are impersonating others online but which could also target satirical political websites. And despite 50 amendments having been approved in the final law, activists have expressed reservations about the powers the bill gives to the Pakistan Telecom Authority (PTA) and other investigators, making it ripe for abuse.

Many of the rights we take for granted are criminalised by the cybercrime bill. The bill makes it illegal to glorify someone who is ‘accused’ of a crime. The government says this is intended to stop militant groups and their sympathisers from making martyrs out of terrorists but in its generalised language, this clause will make it a crime just to advocate for someone who has merely been accused. Similarly, bans on transmission of vulgar and obscene material are vague since different people will have different definitions for such terms. Clauses such as this will have the effect only of empowering the PTA to act as a censor for everything that is online. That is a role the state has already played with relish, blocking the websites of those who fall afoul of official policy. Where it has hesitated to take action is in blocking the activities of militant groups on social media. This precedent shows that the cybercrime bill, too, will be used capriciously by the state to silence voices it disagrees with and leave alone those it favours or wants to appease. The possibility of a legal challenge to the bill seems to have been closed off by the SC in a hearing on the PTA in its comments. This does not bode well for any group that decides to challenge the bill in the higher courts on the grounds that it curtails fundamental rights. For now, a bill that should have tackled true crime – which is a real problem on the internet – has ended up criminalising unpopular speech. We can hope that the intentions behind the bill are as the government has expressed: curbing terrorism and curbing cybercrime. If the bill is able to achieve this task, it would be considered a success. But if the bill becomes a vehicle for targeting activists, the opposing voices are likely to get stronger. Pakistan is entering a new phase of its digital social life. It will not be to everyone’s liking.