Digital Control vs Freedom of Expression in Pakistan

By Ayesha Malik

Just last year, Pakistani courts blocked over two dozen Youtube Channels owned by journalists and political personalities. This censorship followed through for alleged broadcasting of “provocative” content against state institutions. However, this decision was later suspended due to the lack of due process and freedom of expression.

This incident was not the only one. PECA, following the expansion of amendments, has introduced new regulations and increased penalties for “fake” or unlawful content. Critical arguments highlight how such actions allow the state broad authority to control digital spaces, often under unclear criteria.

It could be argued that such developments are global, with worldwide governmental efforts for social media regulation to combat hate speech, misinformation, and security concerns. Specifically in Pakistan, social media platforms are framed as tools of “hybrid warfare” with the potential to destabilise national security. However, there is a more profound conflict that goes well beyond regulation. There are roughly 100 million internet users in Pakistan who not only use social media for communication but also treat it as a space to initiate dialogues on identity and politics publicly. Social media has allowed expression in a more decentralised way that is subject to structural and political forces.

This democratisation of information puts a question mark on the logic of conventional regulatory frameworks. Digital ecosystems challenge the control and compliance enforced by laws like PECA. Content is quickly created, shared extensively and interpreted with diverse viewpoints, blurring the difference between disagreements and defamation. Therefore, the question is not whether regulation is required. The question is whether the current legal systems can effectively govern an area that is decentralised, flexible, and participatory in its very nature.

From a liberal perspective, the freedom of speech is limited by obligations, especially when speech causes harm. Similarly, Islam highlights responsibility in public behaviour, where values of justice and dignity underline the moral use of speech. Both support freedom of expression with a balance of accountability, but are met with the only challenge of enforcement. There is an inconsistency and overreach within concentrated regulatory authorities. According to many reports, Pakistan has increased its censorship policies, including restrictions on VPN use, in an attempt to minimise misuse of authority. This may just tighten control on narrative instead of protecting society.

This creates a dilemma. Although social media has allowed an easy way to express ideas and opinions, the systems governing it are still based on centralised authority. As a result, freedom is present in the structure but not experienced truly. It exposes a flaw in the legislation itself, where it can specify what is acceptable but can not truly control the creation and consumption of contrary beliefs. Also, the digital era collaboratively negotiates ethics through users, communities, and platforms instead of legal enforcement. This is exactly where the argument needs to change.

The question is not whether or not the government should control digital areas, but also how to do so without jeopardising the legitimacy it aims to uphold. The belief that power must be held accountable is shared by both liberal and Islamic thoughts. Regulation, if lacking proportionality and trust, can be detrimental and hence requires balance. In addition to suppressing wrong information and hate speech, overregulation may stifle criticism, restrict participation, and increase public mistrust. In the end, it is still wondered if control is the best means of preserving freedom of speech in an era of democratised information.