See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/376806582

Cyber Laws and Media Censorship in Pakistan: An Investigation of

Governmental Tactics to Curtail Freedom of Expression and Right to
Privacy

Article in Journal of Creative Communications · December 2023

DOI: 10.1177/09732586231206913

CITATIONS READS

0 308

4 authors, including:

Zafar Abbas Robina Khan

Govt. Degree College DIKhan, Pakistan Gomal University
22 PUBLICATIONS 213 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Muhammad Zubair Khan

Gomal University
17 PUBLICATIONS 154 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Zubair Khan on 25 January 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Cyber Laws and Media Censorship Journal of Creative Communications

1–14
in Pakistan: An Investigation of © 2023 MICA-The School of Ideas
Article reuse guidelines:
Governmental Tactics to Curtail in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/09732586231206913
Freedom of Expression and journals.sagepub.com/home/crc

Right to Privacy

Zafar Abbas1 , Robina Khan2, Muhammad Zubair Khan2 and

Muhammad Imran3

Abstract
All the democracies in the world have universally recognised the right to privacy and freedom of
expression as fundamental human rights. It is fundamental to the preservation of all human rights, a
basic element of democracy and a vital part of human dignity. Governments and governmental agencies
frequently violate internationally accepted human rights, norms and standards under the cover of
legislation. Media censorship is a worldwide issue that has existed for centuries. Censorship is often
justified on the grounds of maintaining public order, but the underlying motive is to keep the people
uninformed of governmental activities. It is argued that civil society, media personnel and the common
people are working under pressure in Pakistan due to cyber and media laws. In the name of national
security, the state has been working, intentionally, to put in place the best possible surveillance systems
to establish a sort of watchdog over activists, bloggers, journalists and the general public.

Keywords
Cyber and media laws, social media, censorship, freedom of expression, right to privacy

Introduction
The paradox of liberalism suggests that as much as the state believes in individualism, it cannot afford
not to be realistic by limiting individual freedom for state security, as state security is paramount. Even
more complex is the intrinsic nature of power and authority, which can discipline in a more decentralised
manner—whether it be social, cultural, or even political. It is this aspect of authority that streamlines

1
Department of Political Science, Government College No. 1, D. I. Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
2
Department of Political Science, Gomal University, D. I. Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
3
Department of Management Science, Qurtuba University, D. I. Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Corresponding author:
Zafar Abbas, Department of Political Science, Government College No.1, D. I. Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 29050, Pakistan.
E-mail: [email protected]
2 Journal of Creative Communications

power towards achieving the political goals of a particular group, or political party by compromising
individual liberties beyond norms.
New forms of crimes, such as cyberterrorism, pornography, hacking, online frauds, data damage and
cyber theft, have appeared with the arrival of new media. ‘New media’, or the digitisation of informa-
tion, has emerged as a powerful tool in today’s interconnected world, facilitating the dissemination of
information and the organisation of groups working for the protection and promotion of human rights.
The internet is a vital forum for individuals to discuss and learn more about the policies that impact them.
The emergence of new media has encouraged dynamic change and opened up doors to new channels of
internal conversation between the ruling elites and citizens, as well as between people, as seen by recent
events throughout the globe (Virak, 2011). Mediating internet traffic is a positive start in the sense that
cybercrimes like cyber fraud, hacking, cyber theft and other viruses can be tracked, but media censorship
in the name of security or cyber laws restricts freedom of speech and causes intrusions in general public
privacy and, over time, leads to a trend towards social mistrust. Worldwide freedom of the internet is in
decline. The mediation instilled a climate of control, regulation and censorship of social media content
and the internet. However, various states mediate based on their own criteria.
Today’s democracies are facing difficulties in protecting rights to freedom of expression and privacy.
The greatest difficulty is maintaining a balance between protecting individuals’ rights to privacy and
freedom of expression and the need to maintain order, peace and security in a society where people hold
a wide variety of different belief systems and religious beliefs and practices. It’s worth noting that even
in the most liberal countries, like the United States, restrictions on freedom of expression conditionally
exist (Chaudary, 2014). There is a lack of universal agreement that everyone should have complete free-
dom of expression; in fact, every democracy has its own set of constraints on this fundamental right
(Van, 2015). Article 19 of Pakistan’s Constitution secures the right to free expression to all people with
few restrictions, including ‘national security’, ‘law and order’ and ‘the glory of Islam’. Such constraints
are also used against different communities (Hamdani, 2014).
This article is built on the international norm that the right to privacy and freedom of expression
through media are foundational human rights for all people without any discrimination. It is argued that
cyber and media-related laws in Pakistan are playing a dual role, i.e., protecting users from internet
crimes and serving the purpose of censorship as well.

Cyber and Media Laws

Revolutionary changes in information technology have completely and deeply changed society, and
these changes will continue to happen in the future. Two decades ago, only a few segments of society
were affected by the new technologies, but today, information and communication technologies (ICTs)
have revolutionised all sectors of society. New technology has a tremendous influence on every society
in the world (Shields, 2006). Such trends have contributed to profound social and economic developments.
But the negative aspect of this progress is the rise of digital crimes, which are known as cybercrimes, as
well as the intensification of conventional crimes through emerging technologies. In addition, criminal
behaviour has many effects as compared to the past, since no crime or criminal is limited by national
borders or geographical restrictions. Countries are, no doubt, more driven to follow the ICTs, but at the
same time, they seek to find means to counter the negatives. Legal steps, along with technological
measures, to protect information networks are now being used to discourage and avoid illegal activity
(Mohiuddin, 2006).
Abbas et al. 3

Cybersecurity affects the whole of the internet ecosystem, including its applications, software, physi-
cal infrastructure and hardware. All of that involves securing the information we access, retain and share
online, including banking transactions, confidential information and other correspondence. These dan-
gers have a greater impact than data accessibility and website shutdowns (Worthy, 2017). It is hard to
combat these types of emerging crimes that are not geographically bound, which is a challenge for law
enforcement agencies. Cybercriminals are usually detected, but most of the victims or offenders are still
not prosecuted, imprisoned, or known for their crimes. It is estimated that only 5% of suspects involved
in crimes committed in cyberspace are ever brought to justice or prosecuted, due to a lack of evidence or
their anonymity at the crime scene (Hill & Marion, 2016). Cybercrime laws have been adopted to control
digital-based crimes and counter emerging cybercriminals. Many developments and innovations in this
connection have been noticed at the global level, especially in the last decade.
The United States took the first step in this direction, with the enactment of the WTSPA (Wireless
Telephone Spam Security Act) in 1934 and the new 1934 Communication Act (Hinduja, 2007) to tackle
information technology-related issues. In 1976, the US Congress implemented the first ever internet-
related crime rules and legislation ‘The Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1976’. This legislation was
basically related to copyrights and intellectual property. New crimes regarding copyright violations,
false representation, and the removal or deletion of copyright notices were defined. The Copyrights Act
of 1976 made it unlawful to manufacture tools that might be used to crack passwords or bypass security
measures in software. Interestingly, US Congress members knew the risks of online intellectual property
theft. The Federal Computer Systems Protection Act of 1977, or the ‘Ribicoff Bill’, aimed to curb com-
puter abuse and restrict illegal internet and computer use. Although the US Congress did not pass the bill,
it remains a useful attempt to combat the internet and cybercrime. In 1978, the US government autho-
rised the 1978 International Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), allowing electronic information sur-
veillance (Clinton, 1998).
In response to the growing problem of cybercrime, the US Congress passed the Electronic Fraud and
Harassment Act in 1984. The ‘WarGames’1 movie inspired the passing of the law. Civil society criticised
this law as being vague and narrow in scope. Despite this backlash, Congress made amendments to the
original 1986 statute. A number of other changes were also introduced, in 1988, 1989 and 1990, with
respect to the meanings of words (Washington Post, 2003). In 2001, this act was revised by the United
States Patriot Act and by the Restitution Act and Identity Theft Enforcement Act of 2008. New crimes
such as cyberterrorism, theft, network piracy, cyber-robbery, hacking, viruses, etc., have been created.
The Computer Security Act of 1987 was intended to provide direction to the National Bureau of Standards
in order to create federal computer technology certification programs. While this statute was designed to
deal with crimes relating to the internet and computers, these statutes give US law enactments the poten-
tial to interfere by intercepting communication in the personal lives of the individual. Privacy for all
people is a fundamental human right. Thus, for this reason, the United States enacted the 1986 Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to safeguard privacy in electronic communications. In 2011, it
was amended. This act required service providers not to reveal confidential and personal data about
organisations and citizens.
Research and development for increasing cyber security were made possible by the US Cybersecurity
Enhancement Act 2014. Given the issues raised by civil society over the last several years, it is more
important than ever that the FREEDOM Act of 2015 be passed in order to reduce surveillance practices
in the USA. The act also imposed some limitations on the processing of the bulk of citizens’ contact
information and communication records by American Intelligence Services. In 2015, the US enacted the
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), which addresses cyber threats and regulates internet
4 Journal of Creative Communications

traffic. According to the Email Privacy Act 2016, authorities needed a warrant before they could examine
people’s personal communications or emails (Cope, 2016).
The first significant piece of IT-related legislation that Pakistani legislators drafted was the Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002 (ETO), which came into effect in 2002. The primary goals of the ordinance
were to combat cybercrime and ensure the safety of online businesses both nationally and internation-
ally. ETO in 2002 makes illegal and unauthorised access to information a criminal offence. The main aim
of this regulation was to find and make documentation, information, electronic transactions and com-
munications records more easily available. This law lacks the requirements for determining how to
identify misuse of the law. Nevertheless, the validity of electronic transactions was recognised by this
legislation. Part 36 of the ETO specifies that (Privacy International, 2018):

Anyone who intentionally gains or tries to acquire unauthorized access to any information system, with or
without the intention of obtaining the information contained therein, shall be guilty of a crime. Violation of this
ordinance is a criminal offense that may result in a prison sentence of up to seven years, a fine of up to one million
rupees, or both.

With the implementation of ETO-2002, Pakistan was added to the list of countries that have regulated
electronic communication. This law laid out the legal spectrum for online crimes but had numerous
ambiguities in comparison to other advanced countries, such as the failure to criminalise many
cybercrimes (Khadam, 2016).
The Electronic Crime Act (ECA)-2004 of Pakistan was introduced by the Ministry of Information
Technology in 2004. This statute was modelled after the ETO-2002 with modifications. ECA-2004 spec-
ified a large number of new terms, including electronic theft, illegal entry, cyber-terrorism, system and
data damage. In essence, one of the primary goals of this legislation was to offer legal protection for
anti-cybercrime efforts. To combat cybercrime in Pakistan, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes
Ordinance (PECO 2007) was enacted in 2007 (Daily Dawn, 2009). This can also be remembered given
that in Pakistan, PECO-2007 was supposed to enact cyber-law regulations. The law dealt with the pun-
ishment of electronic fraud and falsification, data damage, cyberstalking, spoofing and spamming. This
ordinance was denounced by certain parts of society for curbing disagreements and being politically
motivated. General Musharraf, the dictator, issued the presidential decree, but, in November 2009, it was
declared void by the efforts of critics and civil society (Zafar & Ahmad, 2011).
On August 18, 2016, the President of Pakistan approved the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act
(PECA)-2016. The Act provided for the censorship, surveillance and penalisation of online speech. Law
enforcement authorities have been granted wide authority to combat cybercrimes. The act also covers
numerous crimes, such as unlawful transfer of data or illegal copying and access to an information sys-
tem. Within this Act, strict punishments were determined, covering data or computer networks linked to
sensitive infrastructure. The act is to be known as ‘cyber-terrorism’ because the offence is linked to criti-
cal infrastructure. Under PECA-2016, hate speech as well as terrorism-related crimes such as planning,
recruitment and/or funding for terrorism by using new media are punishable (LOC, 2016). In addition to
the definition and determination of cybercrime, many powers have been granted to law enforcement
agencies. Many provisions have been heavily opposed by national and international human rights groups
during the PECA-2016 legislative process. The ‘UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’
expressed his concern and proposed that the legislation be properly and extensively reviewed and inter-
national standards set out regarding human rights be followed. The PECA-2016 has been severely criti-
cised for being overly draconian, as a source of infringement on the rights to privacy and freedom of
speech by various international human rights organisations (Privacy International, 2017).
Abbas et al. 5

In Pakistan, the fear and power of the government and intelligence agencies win out over the freedom
of the media and its role as a watchdog. The PECA legislation and the Investigation for Fair Trial Act
(2013) have increased the media’s worries about digital spying. The PECA law of 2016 gives the Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority (PTA) the power to monitor and limit any content offensive to any person
or religion or against Pakistan’s national interest. Under the guise of a fair trial, the 2013 Investigation in
Fair Trial Act gives the government the power to spy on journalists and Pakistani people. These laws
limit the freedom of the press because they make it hard for journalists to do their jobs and because they
are not clear about what is considered disagreeable and against Pakistan’s national interest (Jamil, 2021).
In November 2021, PECA rules were challenged before the Lahore High Court. The court ordered the
parliament to review the regulations in May 2022, so the government could change them to protect the
right to free speech. Yet, the Pakistani courts have not given a clear definition of terms like ‘national
interest’, ‘decency’ and ‘morality’, and the most powerful institutions in the country often think that the
limits set by the constitution do not matter (Freedom House, 2023).
Over the years, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has adopted various positions on social media regula-
tions. The Court has generally supported government initiatives to regulate social media content, par-
ticularly blasphemous, offensive or national security-threatening. In June 2020, the Supreme Court of
Pakistan ruled on a social media regulation case. The Court ordered the establishment of a committee to
oversee the implementation of these provisions (Reuters, 2020). However, the Supreme Court has also
expressed concern over the ban on social media platforms restricting freedom of expression. In 2018, the
Court overturned the ban on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook imposed by the government in response to
a protest in Islamabad. The Court ruled that these restrictions violate citizens’ constitutional rights to
access to information and freedom of expression (Aljazeera, 2018, 2020). Overall, the Supreme Court of
Pakistan has taken a nuanced approach to social media regulations, balancing concerns about national
security and public order with the need to protect freedom of expression and access to information.
The internet is deemed more sensitive due to the high root-level penetration in Pakistan. The cyber-
crime ratio is rising daily in Pakistan as well. The law is the best way to prevent violence, whether it is
physical or electronic. Nevertheless, it is also discovered that government and government agencies
often break laws as a justification for defence, ultimately making citizens hostile to the rule of law. Due
to the secret intentions and misuse of social media laws by state actors, cybercrime and cyber regulations
remain a challenge in Pakistan. Pakistan has not addressed the real redress of grievances from the
aggrieved parties (Abbas & Zubair, 2020).
The government’s measures in the name of cybersecurity have solemnly influenced the lives of activ-
ists, journalists, customers and other individuals. The concept of freedom of the media examines the
legal environment and the role of the state. It needs to protect the media from both the law and practice.
The application of existing legislation guaranteed the freedom of the media and the openness of informa-
tion. The concept of media freedom comprises situations in which media are prohibited, restricted, or
controlled, or in which media and media workers are subjected to regulations that cruelly prevent them
from exercising their right to free speech and do not meet international standards (Global Report, 2018).
The Federal Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Pakistan has drafted an ordinance titled the
Pakistan Media Development Authority (PMDA) (Khilji, 2021). It has been suggested that the PMDA be
given the power to register digital media platforms, monitor them and analyse them, as well as guarantee
that cyber-laws are adhered to and enforced. This may imply that in the future, if the authority is estab-
lished, a license from the PMDA will be required to establish a digital media platform. The proposed
PMDA Ordinance is an act of hostility against journalists. If implemented, it would effectively eliminate
all critical voices on digital platforms through a forced censorship regime that would enable only pliant
media to exist. In other words, this brazen effort to exert control over the narrative would shred the entire
6 Journal of Creative Communications

foundation of the fourth estate, which is to serve as a check on power abuses and as a watchdog for the
public interest (Gossman, 2021).
The purpose of cyberspace laws is to make the internet more organised, clear and under control.
These laws have a tendency to govern and develop a code of conduct for people’s actions that take place
online. These laws, in their most basic form, represent the point where law and technology collide
(Mohiuddin, 2006). Nevertheless, there exists disagreement between various schools of thought.
According to one group, the regulation of media is a violation of international human rights standards,
and it eventually provides the governmental machinery with the opportunity to observe the masses’
online activities. Governments misuse the cyber laws that cover legal and political matters related to
internet-based technology, like freedom of speech, privacy rights and the right to intellectual property.

Censorship Through Official and Unofficial Means

Official control over freedom of speech when it appears as a threat to the state’s order is known as
censorship. Historically, it has been used to monitor public morals, discourage dissenting voices and
control public awareness. Socrates had become the first censor convict in 399 BC. The first censorship
office in Rome was officially established in 443 BC, and in 300 AD it was adopted by China (Newth,
2010). Traditionally, governments filter movies, magazines, websites, books and news before they are
published. Anti-censorship supporters claim it is a restriction on expression and information. Censorship
is a tool used by dictators and unstable democracies to protect law and order with the aim of keeping the
public ignorant (Bennett & Naim, 2015).
From the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, the media was controlled and limitations were placed on the
press in North America and Western Europe on behalf of civil rights and international free trade, on one hand,
and the printing industry and the writers’ interests, on the other. Throughout Britain, there was a steady
improvement in the right to publish books. France allowed book publications after the French Revolution.
There was no press freedom after the Revolution of 1917 in Russia. In Japan and Britain’s colonies, the situ-
ation was the same until the late twentieth century. In the digital era, punitive and coercive media control
became the standard in the context of regulatory authorities (Feintuck, 1999; Hallin & Mancini, 2004).
Censorship is a widespread trend at a global level. It is enforced for the purpose of upholding the
order of society, but the true intention behind it is to preserve the extent of popular ignorance. In the
present case, cross-border access to the internet increases their users’ ability to rapidly acquire informa-
tion, and hence the internet is typically used by people with an advantage in timely contact relative to
others (Abbasi & Al-Sharqi, 2015). The governments enforce strict internet censorship to censor web-
sites and filter content so that the public can use filtered news. Government officials terrorise members
of civil society and journalists who seek to access banned websites.
Of the top 10 most internet-censored countries, North Korea is at the top (USA Today, 2014). Globally,
there are 3 billion internet users, 22% of whom are Chinese, and around 10% are US residents. China is
the most infamous for filtering and intercepting international news material on its blogs. Several nations,
like China, use a strong firewall to prevent internet-based material as a censorship measure (Abbasi &
Al-Sharqi, 2015). Internet usage hit 4,168,461,500 in March 2019, which means that it had penetrated
50.08% of the world’s population. The statistics show that there were 2.2 billion social media users
around the globe in 2019, that is, 31% of the penetration of global social networking (Samroo & Hussain,
2019). In October 2022, there were 4.7 billion social media users around the globe, equating to 59% of
the total population (DataReportal, 2022).
Abbas et al. 7

Laws on censorship often target artists, journalists, members of civil society and critics who share
material on issues of national concern. The first amendment to the US Constitution, adopted in 1787,
gave its people the right to free speech. Herman said that over the past 2,500 years, censorship laws have
been used against writers and opponents even in advanced democracies. John Mearsheimer and Stephen
Walt of American universities, for instance, have been harshly criticised for publishing their expert views
on matters of national importance (Abbasi & Al-Sharqi, 2015).
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) reported that internet usage in the US was 76% in
2016 (FOTN, 2017) and 85% in 2020. Freedom House (2018) studies indicate that the US people are
facing limitations on access to online information imposed by the government. Law enforcement agen-
cies, in emergency situations, use the authority to block the broadband signal to connect to the internet.
The US agencies have a secret protocol and mechanism to block and shut down internet access (Freedom
House, 2018). In Pakistan, state actors are more likely to control the internet and limit social media in the
name of security, ultimately curbing online freedom of expression. In Pakistan, there has been an increase
in surveillance and interference with the internet. There are many examples of the shutdown of wireless
communication and internet infrastructure in Pakistan (DRF, 2015). News channels and social media
sites were shut down for security reasons during a protest by a religious segment in Pakistan. Similarly,
the mobile network shut down for several days in northeastern Pakistan. For instance, the government of
Pakistan has suspended mobile services because of terrorists who supposedly use the wireless network
for violence; mobile services are also suspended often on the eve of religious or national holidays. These
so-called government security measures violate people’s fundamental rights. In addition, telecommuni-
cations firms bore losses of millions of dollars during these shutdowns (Abbas & Zubair, 2020).
In February 2018, the Lahore High Court said that shutting down mobile networks in the name of
public safety under the PTA violated people’s fundamental rights and was, therefore, illegal. However,
the court suspended the ruling temporarily to allow internet suspensions during the Pakistan Day parade
the following month. The Supreme Court confirmed the government’s authority to suspend mobile net-
works in April 2020 (Freedom House, 2023).
Across the US, ordinary citizens have changed their behaviour due to widespread government sur-
veillance. Public scrutiny has a chilling impact on an individual who wants to share a minority’s view
online (Stoycheff, 2016). The March 2015 report of the Pew Research Center reveals that the post-
Snowden2 privacy practices of US citizens indicates that 30% of people surveyed changed their behav-
iour in choosing the application they use. They choose in-person communication as opposed to
communication over the phone (Rainie & Madden, 2015). According to Pew Research Center, 43% of
people of the United States view new technologies as favouring liberal ideas over conservative ones. In
total, 72% believe that the social media platform actively censors opposing political views (Express
Tribune, 2018).
Freedom of expression in Pakistan has faced many obstacles. There were approximately 150 attacks
on journalists and media personnel, as highlighted by Freedom Network, a media watchdog association
working in Pakistan. These assaults include governmental forceful surveillance, written or verbal threats,
coercion, intimidation, assassination, detention and unlawful state containment, as well as non-state
players, including political and religious groups. Across all provinces of Pakistan, nearly 157 cases of
violations were reported from 1 May 2017 to 1 April 2018, 15 violations and threats every month (Anwar,
2018). In an interview with Voice of America (VOA), Iqbal Khattak, Chief Director of Freedom Network,
said that ‘terrorism in Pakistan is declining, but media and democracy are still at risk. The press freedom
situation in Pakistan is deteriorating’ (I. Khattak Interview to VOA, 2018).
Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2021 indicates that media personnel and human rights defend-
ers were subjected to harassment and prosecution by the Pakistani government in 2020 for their work
8 Journal of Creative Communications

opposing government officials and policies. Self-censorship is becoming an increasingly common

response for journalists who are the target of threats and assaults. Authorities have increased the pressure
on media houses to refrain from criticising governmental institutions. Several television channels and
cable operators were blocked by government officials in 2020 after airing critical programs. In September
2020, more than a dozen media personnel and activists were investigated by the Federal Investigation
Agency (FIA) for violating the Electronic Crimes Act. Many activists were charged for comments made
on social media. On 11 September 2020, Express Tribune news editor, Bilal Farooqi was detained in
Karachi for many hours on allegations of sedition before. On 9 September 2020, a prominent journalist
in Jhelum, Punjab, was prosecuted with sedition and high treason for criticising the government agencies
on social media. Asad Ali Toor, a journalist for Samaa News Channel, was accused of sedition on
15 September over comments he made on Twitter (World-Report, 2021).
According to VOA, independent studies reveal that Pakistan is one of the top countries where killings
have been recorded due to the uploading of sensitive matter on the internet. Pakistan has been declared
‘NOT FREE’ for the past seven years, according to the ‘Freedom on the Net’ annual report (Gul, 2017b).
In compliance with the 2020 Freedom of the Press Index, a scale of 0 to 100 is available. The higher the
ranking, the worse the media freedom situation. Pakistan’s score was 45.52 and it ranked 145/180, mean-
ing that Pakistani media is ‘Not Free’. Whereas, the United States scored 23.85 and ranked 45 out of 180
(Reporters Sans Frontiers, 2021). According to the Reporters Sans Frontiers report-2022, Pakistan ranks
157th in the world press freedom index out of 180 countries (Reporters Sans Frontiers, 2022).
Privacy is often related to anonymity, which is a broader notion than security. This encompasses the
concepts of fair use and security of information. ‘The intelligence services have the ability to spy on
individuals and monitor their communications and phone records. They can, moreover, intervene in the
life and digital rights of the citizen…’ (Shahid, 2014).
Because of problems like online hate speech and racism, political propaganda, calls to violence and
terrorism, and offences against religion, governments need to set up rules for the internet and social
media. Concerns have been raised about the newly implemented internet regulations. They affect the
general public. These laws provide the PTA with a level of censoring authority that has never been seen
before. The Pakistani news media’s independence is being attacked in several ways, including constant
surveillance of journalists, death threats, limited government advertisements and phone calls to pressure
them. We can only expect more harm to come to the freedom of the media, especially digital media like
online news websites and broadcasters, as long as people are not free to say what they want on social
media platforms and other websites (Jamil, 2021). The author argues that regulating the right to use the
internet in countries like Pakistan is hard because state officials break the rules about the media in the
name of terrorism, religion and state security.
In Pakistan, the government has strict regulations regarding the content that can be shared on social
media platforms. The government has the power to censor material that it deems to be against the national
interest or offensive to religious or cultural sensitivities.
Some of the materials that are likely to invite government censorship in Pakistan include:
Blasphemous content: Pakistan is an Islamic state, so any content that could be seen as insulting to
Islam or blasphemous is strictly forbidden. It has been reported that the government blocks websites and
social media accounts that share such content (BBC News, 2017).
Criticism of government officials: Government officials or policies that are criticised can be subject
to censorship. In 2017, several bloggers and activists with critical views were detained and charged with
blasphemy and sedition (Gul, 2017a).
Content related to sectarianism: Any content promoting sectarianism or inciting religious hatred will
be censored in Pakistan.
Abbas et al. 9

Pornographic content: In Pakistan, pornography is rigorously prohibited, and any content deemed
pornographic is censored (Aljazeera, 2015).
Fake news and hate speech: In Pakistan, disseminating false news and hate speech on social media
has become a significant concern. It has been reported that the government blocks social media accounts
and websites that share such content (LUMS, 2022). The government can block websites and social
media accounts that violate these guidelines. In some cases, the government has apprehended and pros-
ecuted violators of these regulations (Ahmed, 2019).

Social Media and Freedom of Expression and Privacy

Social media has become one of the most important ways of transmitting, connecting and exchanging
knowledge, views, opinions and information for many people around the world (Mudgal, 2019). Even in
places where freedom of speech is not guaranteed, social media’s reach and ease of use have given
people more freedom of expression than ever before. Social media also helped individuals interact for
any reason, including political and social activities.
People thought that the first wave of the internet would start a new era of digital democracy and lead
to the creation of a virtual public sphere (Blumler & Gurevitch, 2001; Loader, 1997; Tsagarousianou
et al., 1998). It was argued that governance can be substantially enhanced through equal and open discus-
sion among citizens, policymakers and representatives using ICTs (Barlow, 1996). In recent years, tech-
nology has quickly become a part of everyday life. It has also had a big impact on how democracy is set
up and run.
The state now lacks the ability to efficiently protect the interests of its citizens. However, transnation-
alisation and globalisation imply the expansion of social space and governance and are beyond the con-
trol of the government (Splichal, 2009). According to John Stuart Mill, freedom of expression in relation
to freedom of writing and reading exposes reality, which guarantees citizens’ self-fulfilment to ensure
their engagement in the democratic process (Khan, 2010).
Although the internet has made it easier to get information, share information, express opinions and
ideas, and do other similar things, it has also led to problems with people’s privacy, whether they use the
internet or not. The right to privacy includes the right not to be interrupted. The courts have construed
this right in various ways, including the right to privacy of one’s bodily functions and the right not to be
under surveillance by the state (Halder, 2021).
The right to free expression is exercised by people through the media. Free speech is a significant part
of a liberal democratic society. Democratic accountability can be made possible by freedom of expres-
sion. Media-supported freedom of expression can protect the other rights of the citizen (Mendel, 2011).
Westin (1967) argues that people are entitled to privacy and to the degree to which their information can
be shared with others. People have a right to freely choose if their identity can be exposed to others under
certain circumstances.
McQuail argues that accurate, real and impartial media establish a platform for constituting different
ideas that are free and self-regulating (McQuail, 2005). After the 2000s, advanced ICTs came to the
forefront. The microelectronic system that spreads manipulation of information codes is associated with
a fundamental biological revolution. At that time, a modern, innovative communication and networking
system called the internet was created (Murtaza, 2012).
The internet has the ability to make people aware of issues at the grass-root level in the political and
social spheres, which is the basic requirement of a democratic regime. Castells reported the advent of a
new network society. Castells also presented the idea of an information society and highlighted the fact
10 Journal of Creative Communications

that the emerging global world has focused on technologies, information and knowledge to shape living
conditions across a collective spectrum. The internet provides various benefits, but the value of face-to-
face contact is also valuable (Mansell, 2010).
The drawing room discussion on politics has moved across smartphones and led to social media. This
transition is turning into the digital age in Pakistan, and political events are now debated on social media
around the world. New media is viewed as more egalitarian than traditional media because people are
able to share their views and upload videos or images without any control over the editorial policies of
conventional media. Social media give stronger engagement and promote the idea of ‘citizen journal-
ism’. It makes politicians more accountable as their comments on social media are freely visible and
videos, images and updates are easily accessible. Yet there are possibilities and implications for falling
premises that threaten the political importance of the traditional style of politicians (Khilji, 2018).
Article 14 of the Pakistani Constitution clarifies that everyone has the right to dignity and privacy. But
most laws have given the federal government a lot of power to listen to citizens’ phone calls. Section 54
of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganisation) Act of 1996 gives the government unrestricted
power to intercept calls and messages or track calls through any telecommunications system in the inter-
est of national security or to stop any crime. In the seminal case of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto vs. the
President of Pakistan, in which it was found that the government had been involved in illegally tapping
the phones of political opponents with the covert support of intelligence agencies, the Supreme Court
said: ‘In our country, hardly there is any effective law to check this menace and illegal act…’. We have
concluded that tapping and listening to people’s phones is disgusting, immoral, illegal and against the
Constitution. No way has been set up to stop authorities from tapping, watching or listening to private or
official phone calls. In 2013, Parliament passed a bill that aimed to regulate certain governmental sur-
veillance activities. The Investigation for Fair Trial Act grants law enforcement agencies broad authority
to intercept telephone conversations, electronic communications and other communication equipment if
there is a threat or chance that a suspect would try to commit a listed offence. Still, law enforcement
agencies have to get a warrant from a high court judge before they can wiretap. They do this by sending
a request to the federal government through the interior minister and then asking the judge for a warrant.
In addition, courts may only authorise a warrant if they believe the proposed surveillance is justified and
does not violate the right to privacy of a person or place (Malik, 2022).

Conclusion
The misuse of cyber and media regulations, which acts as a kind of censorship for both old and new
media, is hurting the development of real public opinion and the strengthening of Pakistan’s crumbling
democracy. Cybersecurity laws and policies are having a direct effect on human rights, especially the
right to privacy and the right to free speech. Policymakers have enacted many regulations to safeguard
the ICT system and the internet from harmful actors. However, civil society activists often criticise these
policies for being ill-defined, too broad and lacking a proper system of checks and balances or other
mechanisms for accountability. This scenario has the potential to impede innovation and results in human
rights violations. Cybercrime laws, for example, are also applied to censor and monitor communication,
prosecute internet users and suppress dissidents for expressing their opinions.
Governments and governmental institutions often violate internationally recognised human rights
norms and standards by misusing and breaching laws. Violations related to the media use a variety of
tactics to silence dissenters’ voices, restrict or censor information, and even cut-off access to technical
hubs in certain cases. Bloggers, media personnel, members of civil society and common people who
Abbas et al. 11

express their opinions on the internet on various matters face the same dangers. They are working under
pressure in Pakistan. According to Freedom House, Pakistan is one of the worst nations in the world
when it comes to internet privacy and freedom of expression for its people. The government of Pakistan
is imposing a strict and intensive surveillance system in the form of media laws to monitor the actions of
all users, including media personnel and activists. Private email and mobile phone communications are
monitored by security and governmental authorities under the cover of the law in order to gather infor-
mation about terrorist activity, which undermines people’s privacy. With Pakistan’s surveillance culture,
we cannot expect free media. State authorities monitor media personnel’s phone conversations, e-mails,
WhatsApp chats and social media posts.
Shortly, cyber and media laws are playing a dual role. These are necessary for the protection of indi-
vidual internet users, but on the other side, these laws are also used to threaten bloggers, media persons,
members of civil society, activists and other common citizens.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Zafar Abbas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0314-7430

Notes
1. The 1983 film ‘WarGames’ was inspired by American science fiction set during the Cold War. The plot of the
film centres on a young hacker who hacks and accesses the supercomputers of the United States military in order
to steal war operations and nuclear preparations.
2. Edward Snowden is a former contractor for the United States government and a Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) employee who copied and leaked very top-secret documents in 2013.

References
Abbas, Z., & Zubair, M. (2020). Freedom of expression under censorship is a threat to democracy. The Dialogue,
15(1), 18–26.
Abbasi, I. S., & Al-Sharqi, L. (2015). Media censorship: Freedom versus responsibility. Academic Journals, Journal
of Law and Conflict Resolution, 7(4), 21–25.
Ahmed, A. (2019, February 25). Crackdown starts on ‘misuse’ of social media in Pakistan. World Asia. https://
gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakistan/crackdown-starts-on-misuse-of-social-media-in-pakistan-1.62303683
Aljazeera. (2015, May 13). Surveilling and censoring the internet in Pakistan. https://www.aljazeera.com/
features/2015/5/13/surveilling-and-censoring-the-internet-in-pakistan
Aljazeera. (2018). Pakistan’s Supreme Court overturns social media ban. Al-Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/
news/2018/4/2/pakistans-supreme-court-overturns-social-media-ban
Aljazeera. (2020). Pakistan Supreme Court orders review of social media rules. Al-Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.
com/news/2020/9/23/pakistan-supreme-court-orders-review-of-social-media-rules
Anwar, M. (2018, May 3). Freedom of expression in Pakistan continues to face challenges. VOA News. Retrieved
from https://www.voanews.com/a/freedom-expression-pakistan-continues-face-challenges/4376718.html
Barlow, J. P. (1996). Declaration of the independence of cyberspace. EFF. http://projects.eff.org/~barlow/
Declaration-Final.html
12 Journal of Creative Communications

BBC News. (2017, March 17). Pakistan targets blasphemous material on social media. https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-asia-39300270
Bennett, P., & Naim, M. (2015). 21st-century censorship. Columbia Journalism Review, 53(5), 22–29.
Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (2001). The new media and our political communication discontents: Democratizing
cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society, 4(1), 1–13.
Chaudary, Z. A. (2014, May 4). Freedom of speech and its parameters. Daily Times. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/
opinion/05-May-2014/freedom-of-speech-and-its-parametres
Clinton, W. J. (1998, May 22). Commencement Address at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis,
Maryland. The American Presidency Project, Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. http://www.presidency.ucsb.
edu/ws/?pid=56012
Cope, S. (2016, April 27). House advances email privacy act, setting the stage for vital privacy reform.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/house-advances-email-privacy-act-
setting-stage-vital-privacy-reform
Daily Dawn. (2009, October 30). Traders term e-crime law anti-people. https://www.dawn.com/news/889238
DataReportal. (2022). Global social media statistics. https://datareportal.com/social-media-users#:~:text=Analysis%20
from%20Kepios%20shows%20that,of%20the%20total%20global%20population
DRF. (2015). Pakistan: New Cybercrime Bill threatens the rights to privacy and free expression. Digital Rights
Foundation. https://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Pakistan-Cybercrime-Joint-
Analysis_20-April-2015.pdf
Express Tribune. (2018, August 26). Trump social media censorship claim is fake but widely believed. https://
tribune.com.pk/story/1788207/3-trump-social-media-censorship-claim-fake-widely-believed/
Feintuck, M. (1999). Media regulation, public interest and the law. University of Edinburgh Press.
FOTN. (2017). Internet Freedom Scores. Freedom on the net. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2017/
united-states
Freedom House. (2018). Internet Freedom Score. Freedom on the net. https://freedomhouse.org/report/
freedom-net/2018/united-states
Freedom House. (2023). Freedom on the net 2022. https://freedomhouse.org/country/pakistan/freedom-net/2022
Global Report. (2018). World trend in freedom of expression and media development. UNESCO and University of
Oxford.
Gossman, P. (2021, August 23). Proposed Pakistan authority seeks greater control of media. Human Rights Watch.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/08/23/proposed-pakistan-authority-seeks-greater-control-media
Gul, A. (2017a, March 24). Detained Pakistani bloggers face blasphemy charges. Voice of America. https://www.
voanews.com/a/bloggers-detained-face-blasphemy-charges/3781042.html
Gul, A. (2017b, November 14). Study: Internet freedom worsens in Pakistan. Voice of America. https://www.
voanews.com/a/internet-freedom-worsens-pakistan-study/4114815.html
Halder, D. (2021). Cyber victimology: Decoding cyber crime victimization. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. University of Cambridge Press.
Hamdani, Y. (2014, December 2). Major Challenges to Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech in Pakistan.
Media Defence. https://www.mediadefence.org/news/major-challenges-to-fundamental-right-of-freedom-of-
speech-in-pakistan/
Hill, J. B., & Marion, N. E. (2016). Computer crimes, laws, and policing in 21st century. Praeger Security
International Textbooks.
Hinduja, S. (2007). Computer crime investigations in the United States: Leveraging knowledge from the past to
address the future. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1(2), 1–26.
Jamil, S. (2021). The rise of digital authoritarianism: Evolving threats to media and Internet freedoms in Pakistan.
World of Media Journal of Russian Media and Journalism Studies, 3(3), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.30547/
worldofmedia.3.2021.1
Khadam, N. (2016, August 19). Seriousness towards cybercrimes laws in Pakistan. The News. https://www.thenews.
com.pk/print/143651-Seriousness-towards-cyber-crime-laws-in-Pakistan
Khan, Z. (2010, September 10). Media’s role in democracy. Daily Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/561695
Abbas et al. 13

Khilji, U. (2018, July 25). Polls and social media. Daily Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1422444
Khilji, U. (2021, June 3). One step forward, two back. Daily Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1627201
Loader, B. D. (Ed.). (1997). The governance of cyberspace: Politics, technology and global restructuring. Routledge.
LOC. (2016, September 21). Pakistan: National Assembly passes a new cybercrime law. Library of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2016-09-21/pakistan-national-assembly-passes-new-
cybercrime-law/
LUMS. (2022). Tackling fake news in social media: Policy analysis. https://cbs.lums.edu.pk/student-research-series/
tackling-fake-news-social-media-policy-analysis
Malik, O. I. (2022, September 9). Tapping phones. Daily Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1709185
Mansell, R. (2010). The life and times of the information society. Prometheus, 28(2), 165–186.
McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s mass communication theory (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Mendel, T. (2011). Restricting freedom of expression: Standards and principles [Paper presented]. Centre for Law
and Democracy. https://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.03.Paper-on-Restrictions-on-
FOE.pdf
Mohiuddin, Z. (2006). Cyber laws in Pakistan; A situational analysis and way forward. Ericsson Pakistan
(PVT.) LTD.
Mudgal, V. (2019). A vital report on trends in media freedom and its link with the future of democracy. Journal of
Creative Communications, 14(2), 160–170.
Murtaza, N. (2012, December 5). Globalization Paradigms. Daily Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/769062
Newth, M. (2010). The long history of censorship. http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=475
Privacy International. (2017). The right to privacy in Pakistan. Privacy International: Human Rights Committee
120th Session.
Privacy International. (2018). State of privacy in Pakistan. Bytes for all. https://privacyinternational.org/
state-privacy/1008/state-privacy-pakistan
Rainie, L., & Madden, M. (2015). Americans’ privacy strategies post-snowden. Pew Research Center. https://www.
pewresearch.org/internet/2015/03/16/americans-privacy-strategies-post-snowden/
Reporters Sans Frontiers. (2021). Enemies of the Internet. https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2021
Reporters Sans Frontiers. (2022). RSF’s 2022 World Press Freedom Index: A new era of polarisation [EN/RU].
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/rsf-s-2022-world-press-freedom-index-new-era-polarisation-enru?gclid
=CjwKCAjwiOCgBhAgEiwAjv5whGKU0Ha6XFSBHSXG5kvpclD42vSz7599WmDYEb0x78FVtA31
wxJ3shoCEKwQAvD_BwE
Reuters. (2020). Pakistan court upholds social media rules aimed at blocking blasphemous content. Reuters. https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-internet/pakistan-court-upholds-social-media-rules-aimed-at-blocking-
blasphemous-content-idUSKBN23P18E
Samroo, T. R., & Hussain, M. (2019). Social media-related cybercrimes and techniques for their prevention. Applied
Computer Systems, 24(1), 9–17.
Shahid, J. (2014, November 15). No Safeguard to protect people from government snooping. Daily Dawn. https://
www.dawn.com/news/1144575
Shields, P. (2006). Electronic networks, enhanced state surveillance and the ironies of control. Journal of Creative
Communications, 1(1), 19–38.
Splichal, S. (2009). ‘New’ media, ‘old’ theories: Does the (national) public melt into the air of global governance?
European Journal of Communication, 24(4), 391–405.
Stoycheff, E. (2016). Under surveillance: Examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet
monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 296–311.
Tsagarousianou, R., Tambini, D., & Bryon, C. (1998). Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities and civic networks.
Routledge.
USA Today. (2014, February 5). Top 10 Internet-censored countries. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/
world/2014/02/05/top-ten-internet-censors/5222385/
Van, M. D. (2015). Freedom of speech. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring
ed.). Stanford University.
14 Journal of Creative Communications

Virak, O. (2011). Internet censorship: The ongoing crackdown on freedom of expression in Cambodia. Combodian
Center for Human Rights.
Washington Post. (2003, May 16). The US government and cybersecurity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A50606-2002Jun26_2.html
Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Atheneum.
World-Report. (2021). Pakistan, events of 2000. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/
country-chapters/pakistan
Worthy, B. (2017). The politics of freedom of information: How and why governments pass laws that threaten their
power. MUP.e
Zafar, F., & Ahmad, S. (2011). The challenges of internet rights in Pakistan. Global Information Society Watch.
https://www.giswatch.org/en/country-report/internet-rights/challenge-internet-rights-pakistan

Authors’ Bio-sketch
Zafar Abbas has a PhD in political science. He is an assistant professor at Government College No. 1,
Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan, and an adjunct faculty member at Qurtuba University, D. I. Khan, Pakistan.
His research interests include international relations and comparative studies, gender studies, human
rights, cybersecurity, and political socialization.

Robina Khan has a PhD in political science. She is an assistant professor at Gomal University, Dera
Ismail Khan, Pakistan. She is also teaching at Qurtuba University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan. Her
research interests include human rights, minorities, women’s rights, international relations, and political
theory.

Muhammad Zubair Khan has a PhD in politics and international relations. He is an assistant professor
at Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan. His research interests include political theory,
comparative politics, communication technology, and globalization.

Muhammad Imran has a PhD in management science. He is an assistant professor in the Department
of Management Science at Qurtuba University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan.

View publication stats