THE recent inadvertent blocking of certain websites such as Bloomberg and BuzzFeed in Pakistan makes for a concise study in the sinister nature of systems of arbitrary power — as well as their silliness. The mechanisms for content regulation are straightforward enough: government and state institutions (often the interior ministry) send directives to the PTA (solely vested with the power to regulate content under the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act) listing websites purportedly hosting illegal content; the authority, in turn, proceeds to direct internet service providers to block these websites. As reported in this paper on Monday, however, when contacted for more information on why these recent website restrictions (corroborated by multiple sources, including a copy of the directive) were imposed in Pakistan, the PTA initially denied blocking these particular sites, yet later issued fresh orders directing ISPs to unblock them.

Though the mistake originated from another department, what this absurdity of errors illustrates is how the PTA has no internal checks and balances with which to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate requests, choosing instead to implement them en masse. Nor does it publicly disclose what web content has been restricted in Pakistan, or why — making it that much harder for the public to scrutinise and challenge the legitimacy of their grounds. Adding to bureaucratic abstruseness is one of several deliberate flaws in Peca’s design: the use of vague and highly subjective terminology such as ‘objectionable content’. This has created a climate in recent years in which internet freedom has consistently deteriorated, with all sorts of content — including political, even satirical — having been censored. Fundamental rights to freedom of speech and to a free press do come with the caveat of ‘reasonable restrictions’, and most of our right to information laws are subject to a prohibitively long exemption list. However, it would be a subversion of the spirit of the Constitution to presume that citizens are not entitled to an open debate on where the line of ‘reasonability’ ends, and a draconian censorship dragnet begins.

Published in Dawn, June 4th, 2019

Opinion

Long arm of Big Tech
20 Jan 2021

Long arm of Big Tech

How many people would still be alive if Twitter and Facebook had denied Trump a platform to spread lies about Covid-19 a year ago?
Words, words, words
19 Jan 2021

Words, words, words

There was little in terms of contributions in our own language as we wrestled with the pandemic.

Editorial

Updated 20 Jan 2021

Broadsheet judgement

There are plenty of skeletons in the Broadsheet cupboard and they must be brought out into the open.
20 Jan 2021

Unequal justice

IT seems no one wants to testify against former SSP Malir, Rao Anwar. At least five prosecution witnesses, all ...
20 Jan 2021

Schools reopening

THE disruptive impact of Covid-19 on education will be felt for years to come. For countries like Pakistan, where...
Updated 19 Jan 2021

LNG contracts

It is important for industry to reconnect with the national grid and for gas to be allocated for more efficient uses.
19 Jan 2021

Murdered judges

THE continuous violence in Afghanistan has raised serious questions about the sustainability of the peace process, ...
19 Jan 2021

K2 feat

A TEAM of 10 Nepalese mountaineers made history over the weekend as they scaled the world’s second highest peak K2...