Policing morality

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority has decided to ban four popular dating Apps, including the very popular Tinder. The PTA states that the app leads to immoral behaviour, and that its content violates Pakistan's morality and its laws. Previous requests to the companies which host the Apps to censor them or control their content had been ignored. The question however is broader than this. It brings up the issue of who has the right to decide what is and is not 'moral'. This is especially true in a country where corruption is widespread, where rapes occur every day, where child abuse is a common practice and where gender-based violence takes place in every city, and in every town. There has been little to no effort to combat these issues, despite their constant presence in our lives. It seems the easier option is to just shut down websites and apps.

Social media activists have pointed out that policing people and their morality in this fashion is a violation of people's rights as adult citizens to determine how to behave and what to do. The main issue would be that of law, and whether Tinder violates any law in Pakistan. A few weeks ago, the PTA had also banned the popular game, PubG, on the basis that it wasted the time of children and prevented them from diverting their interest to useful activities and that it was leading to self-harm. Regardless, does the government have the right to intervene? Are the people of Pakistan okay with allowing a nanny-state monitor and dictate private lives as well? In addition, the PTA has also warned TikTok that it could be banned if it does not control the 'immorality' of its content. These are very personal and arbitrary issues. What is offensive to one person may be acceptable to the other. We must also question whether the state has the right to determine how people act and what they do, provided they're not violating the law or hurting the interests of anyone else. The case is one that will be taken up by groups protecting digital rights, although our judiciary has in the past shown itself to be as trigger-happy when it comes to censoring the internet. The only way to prevent future censorship of technology is by making clear that citizens know their rights and will not abide constant incursions into their lives. States and rulers have since time immemorial used the ruse of morality to control the populace. Our personal views on what constitutes morality should not blind us to the fact that personal liberty should not be up for negotiation.