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

Most Popular

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

Opinion

Elite privileges
20 Apr 2021

Elite privileges

Elite bargains provide a powerful view of our political economy.
A conjurer of limitless hope
20 Apr 2021

A conjurer of limitless hope

Rehman Sahib came across as a battle-scarred soldier who was perpetually planning to regroup after a setback.
Cabinet lotto
Updated 20 Apr 2021

Cabinet lotto

To return to finance, the second change in the key ministry is interesting for how it differs from the first.
Election ex machina
Updated 19 Apr 2021

Election ex machina

Neither EVMs nor i-voting are new innovations, yet their use remains deeply controversial.

Editorial

Media blackout
Updated 20 Apr 2021

Media blackout

A free flow of information is the best way to counter rumour-mongering and fake news.
20 Apr 2021

Gas utilities’ reluctance

THE government has ‘ordered’ state-owned gas companies SSGC and SNGPL to remove impediments hampering the...
20 Apr 2021

Saudi-Iran talks

EVER since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, ties between Tehran and Riyadh have been increasingly strained,...
19 Apr 2021

Vaccine shortfall

THE hope that the slew of Covid-19 vaccinations approved for use since the end of last year would vanquish the ...
Another package
Updated 19 Apr 2021

Another package

Sindh has not seen much development worth the name during the PPP’s more than decade-long rule in the province.
19 Apr 2021

Cricket triumph

TEAM Pakistan have a number of reasons to rejoice after their 3-1 T20 series win over hosts South Africa on Friday....