The law was originally passed in 2016, by the same ruling party that has brought the current amendments — the Pakistan Muslim League-N. It had been met with much criticism even then. The amendment to the law, criminalises fake news and its dissemination.
By Zofeen Ebrahim
“I may not be able to continue hosting my show because the content I put up will most certainly land me in prison,” said senior correspondent Azaz Syed who works for a private TV channel, but who also has his own private online digital channel. He was referring to the recent amendment in the already existing cybercrime law, terming it a “wild” law which has been instituted to grapple with fake news among other online harms.
The new version — Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 — passed hurriedly, within a week, in both the houses without debate, and signed into a law by President Asif Ali Zardari on January 29, has triggered nationwide protests by the country’s media personnel.
“They have taken away my right to freedom of expression,” Syed told IPS.
“I fail to understand the uproar among journalists working in electronic media. They already have PEMRA, [the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority] which is responsible for facilitating and regulating private electronic media,” said Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar. “This law is to regulate the social media and countries across the world have some codes or standards under which social media operate; but there was none in our country.”
He said the existing authority, which is the Federal Investigation Authority, that looked into cybercrimes seemed ill-equipped to handle the expanding nature of online crimes taking place — harassment, pornography, national security threats, spreading economic uncertainty; just look at the conviction rate, which is dismal,” he defended the amendment.
Tarar’s reference to the “uproar” stems from TV journalists, like Syed, who have gigs on online platforms and fear the restrictions on content imposed by PECA.
Losing their Voices
For the past two years, Syed has been hosting a popular show on YouTube called Talk Shock, focusing on sensitive topics like the Pakistan army, intelligence agencies, blasphemy laws, persecution of Ahmadis, and forced conversions of Hindu girls. He described it as a passion project addressing issues close to his heart, despite potential disapproval from authorities. His show has gained over eight million viewers and 174,000 followers, also providing him with extra income.
Hamid Mir, host of Capital Talk, one of the oldest and highest-rated political talk shows, launched his digital TV channel on YouTube after being banned from TV in 2021 (he had already been banned twice, in 2007 by military dictator Pervez Musharraf and in 2008 by the ruling Pakistan People’s Party) for speaking against the country’s powerful military for persecuting journalists. “I share my opinions there when I am unable to on the channel that I’m employed in. Having your own platform is liberating,” he told IPS. He has 263,000 viewers.
Mir’s greater worry though is the possibility of losing his voice on X, where he connects with over eight million followers. “If I can’t speak my mind, it will have a profound impact on me,” he said.
But even those journalists who otherwise feel social media is being misused find the law distasteful.
“I have zero tolerance for fake news, and am all for regulating the beast that social media has become, but not this way, certainly” said senior investigative journalist, Umar Cheema, terming it a “third class” law.
Potential for Misuse
The law was originally passed in 2016, by the same ruling party that has brought the current amendments — the Pakistan Muslim League-N. It had been met with much criticism even then.
“The reason for the need for the law given back in 2016 was to counter hate speech, terrorist content and harassment of women — this time the ruse is fake news,” said Farieha Aziz’s co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights. The suspicion and criticism against the law now and then is the same — the government is using this law to “stifle political dissent and rein in freedom of expression” she said.
The amendment to the law, criminalises fake news and its dissemination with a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 2 million (about USD 7,200).
But, pointed out Aziz, the concern went beyond just the penalties associated with the amendment to the law — it is the “potential for misuse” in the process of determining what constitutes fake news. “People will be reluctant to share or even discuss information out of fear that it might be deemed false or harmful, leading to criminal charges,” she explained, adding the definition of fake news was vague and broad. “They have created a vagueness through the use of language taken from the anti-terrorism act, around the offence,” she pointed out.
Unconstitutional
“The government operates in grey areas and likes to keep people in a state of confusion,” agreed Cheema.
Moreover, pointed out, Munazza Siddiqui, senior producer on a private TV channel: “The law is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental right to freedom, a core principle enshrined in our Constitution.” She uses TikTok, a platform predominantly used for putting up entertaining content, for disseminating news and opinions. “It’s popular with young people but works superbly for me as they are my audience. The millennials and Gen Z want to stay informed about the world around them, but they lack the patience to sit through long articles or watch lengthy news segments on TV. I provide them with both in just a minute or so!”
However, Siddiqui acknowledged that her vlogging might be impacted. With the sword of Damocles hanging over her, in the form of the newly revised cyber law, she said, “We already navigate a space of self-censorship, and now there’s an added layer of fear.”
The law establishes four bodies — the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, the Social Media Complaints Council, the Social Media Protection Tribunal, and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency—concentrating significant power. Aziz warned that these bodies, appointed by the federal government, could lack independence, creating potential conflicts of interest and undermining fairness and accountability.
“And the window of appeal has also been closed as I can only go to the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” said Azaz, which was an expensive route to prove your innocence.
Facts Must be Solid
Although the 2016 cybercrime law was already considered draconian by experts, the reason to tweak it further, explained Cheema, was that “the nature and use of social media has changed and become more sophisticated since then, adding that the media needed to share the blame for the recent shape the law has taken.
Cheema said the media did not establish a code of conduct for responsible social media use which led the government to step in, using the fake news excuse to silence dissenting voices. He emphasised that while media can express opinions, facts must be solid, and journalists should hold each other accountable. “Yet, we don’t even call out our colleagues for lying.”
Finding the nationwide protest hypocritical, he questioned, “The bill wasn’t a surprise — everyone knew it was being revised. Why didn’t anyone speak up then? Where were the protests and revisions when it was in the National Assembly and Senate? There was silence, and now, after it’s law, they’re out on the streets.”
“The law is in place,” Tarrar said with finality. However, he added: “The rules are still being worked out, and we’re open to media input to refine them.”
“Recalling the law may be tough,” agreed Cheema, but if the media is concerned, “They can come up with their own system; no one is stopping them; but that’s the real test for our community.”
This piece has been sourced from Inter Press Service.
