Freedom of Expression vs State Security

When the country descends into darkness and freedom of expression goes offline, how long before democracy follows suit? Is the battle against anti-state propaganda worth stifling the voices and livelihood of its citizens? In an age where digital connectivity drives societies, the recent imposition of firewalls and internet sanctions in Pakistan raises alarming concerns about the balance between state security and the fundamental rights of the citizens.

The national internet firewall has been implemented by the Pakistani government to regulate online content to safeguard national security and public order; officials have asserted that this measure is designed to filter out material deemed as harmful to the security of Pakistan, aligning with the Prevention of  Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016. Minister of State for Information Technology, Shaza Fatima has stated that the firewall is intended to enhance cyber security and protect citizens from harmful content online. Furthermore, authorities argue that the firewall will filter out hate speech designed to incite violence, fake news and misinformation campaigns targeting political institutions or the military, and foreign-sponsored disinformation campaigns aimed at influencing public opinion against the government.

However, the measures imposed have led to questions regarding whether the intention is really to bring about these benefits or is merely a pretext for curbing political dissent and suppressing freedom of expression. Article 19 of the constitution of Pakistan delivers the right of every citizen to have free speech, defined as the right of every citizen to hold opinions, express those opinions, and speak. At its core, this right is a cornerstone of democracy, allowing citizens to critique and hold authorities accountable. The direct result of the state tightening its grip on the digital access of its people is the sanctity of this principle being violated. This creates an environment where discourse is stifled and the line between curbing anti-state propaganda and silencing dissent, is blurred. This has led to concerns regarding legitimate political concerns being unfairly labeled as anti-state propaganda.

S54 of the 1996 Pakistan Telecommunications Act grants authorities the power to suspend internet services; while the law can only be invoked during a state of emergency, it has been used to justify routine shutdowns. Such an event was the virtual rally in January 2024, hosted by the opposition Pakistan Tehreek Insaaf (PTI) party, during which social media platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube were made inaccessible to users. What makes the situation more alarming is the fact that this is not the only time PTA has implemented policies that undermine internet freedom. Initially denying the ban on X, the Ministry of Information admitted to ordering the blockage, allegedly due to national security reasons. The government has further tried attributing the disruption to global internet outages from Meta servers, but Meta has refuted the claims and claimed that “Meta has nothing to do with this”  

While internet restrictions were already being placed with a lack of transparency, the imposition of the firewall has led to a further restriction on freedom of speech. It has resulted in not only widespread censorship but also self-censorship due to the fear of being targeted. The broad and vague provisions of PECA allow for selective interpretations, making individuals cautious about what they post online to avoid legal consequences; the monitoring has further created a chilling effect, discouraging people from expressing controversial views.

Moreover, professionals like bloggers and journalists have reported harassment and detention for publishing content critical of the government, leading to self-censorship of the media in an attempt to protect their livelihood. This has created an environment where individuals, journalists, and entire organizations are censored, undermining democratic values and stifling freedom of expression. While civil liberties are concerned regarding these new measures, they have had a significant negative impact on the economy of Pakistan, with businesses operating online – especially in tech and e-commerce – being negatively impacted. According to the Pakistan Software Houses Association (PASHA), the disruptions are a direct assault on the industry’s viability, with estimates of losses reaching around $300 million. This shows that even if civil liberties are ignored, people’s livelihoods are at stake. It is also noteworthy that the content regulations were decreed without any consultation with the stakeholders, implying in consideration for the citizens affected.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) stated that these procedures are activated in a completely opaque manner, including the nature of the content; this lack of transparency will prevent the public from knowing the scale of censorship to which they are being subject. Various international organizations have expressed significant concerns regarding internet restrictions and censorship measures, with Amnesty International calling on authorities to be transparent about the disruptions and to avoid deploying systems that violate international human rights law. In 2024 August, they claimed that “the use of such technologies, including national firewalls, has proven to be incompatible with human rights”. They claimed that these tools undermined online freedom of expression and access to information.

While the government claims these measures are necessary for Pakistan’s national security and the maintenance of order, the question that now arises is whether the cost of this “security” is worth it. As the quotation goes in the book ‘The Politics of Faith and The Politics of Scepticism’: “The barbarism of order appears when order is pursued for its own sake and when the preservation of order involves the destruction of that without which order is only the orderliness of the ant-heap or the graveyard”, this begs the question: is the zeal for maintaining national security worth silencing the very voices that make up society, worth stifling the expression of human individuality and opinions?