Dr Bilawal Kamran
The controversial Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2025 has sparked widespread uproar in Pakistan, drawing heavy criticism from both opposition lawmakers and journalists. After passing through the National Assembly, the bill was quickly introduced in the Senate, where it was referred to a committee amid fierce protests. With its provisions to regulate and punish online content, the bill has been labeled by critics as a draconian tool to curb freedom of speech and silence dissent, particularly in the realm of social media.
This bill comes at a time when digital platforms and social media have become central to the political discourse in Pakistan. Citizens increasingly turn to social media to express opinions, share news, and even mobilize for causes. However, with the growing power of online communication, concerns have emerged over the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and content that can destabilize public order. The PECA Amendment Bill aims to address these issues, but the question remains: is the bill a genuine effort to regulate harmful content, or is it an overreach that infringes upon the fundamental right to free speech?
One of the most contentious aspects of the PECA Amendment Bill 2025 is the provision under Section 26A, which calls for up to three years of imprisonment and fines of up to two million rupees for individuals found guilty of spreading “false or fake” information. The bill defines “fake information” in broad terms, suggesting that anyone who disseminates content that “may create a sense of fear, panic, or disorder” could face harsh penalties. This sweeping language leaves room for interpretation, and it could be used to target individuals for merely sharing news or opinions deemed to be inflammatory by authorities.
The bill also gives power to a newly proposed Social Protection and Regulatory Authority to issue orders for the removal or blocking of content on social media platforms. This includes content that “incites hatred and contempt” based on religious, sectarian, or ethnic grounds, promotes terrorism, or is deemed “obscene” or “pornographic.” While these measures may seem justified in protecting citizens from harmful content, the bill’s broad scope raises concerns about censorship and the potential for abuse. Who defines what constitutes “hate speech” or “obscenity,” and where is the line between regulation and suppression?
Critics fear that the bill could be weaponized to silence opposition voices, journalists, and activists who use social media to hold the government accountable. In recent years, Pakistan has already seen a disturbing trend of journalists being harassed or attacked for their reporting, and the PECA Amendment Bill may further exacerbate this climate of fear.
At the heart of the debate over the PECA Amendment Bill is the tension between regulation and freedom of expression. In a country with a diverse population, where political opinions are often polarized and tensions run high, regulating online content becomes a complex task. On one hand, the government has a responsibility to maintain public order and protect citizens from harmful content, including fake news, hate speech, and incitement to violence. On the other hand, the constitution of Pakistan guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and any attempts to stifle dissent can be seen as an infringement on this fundamental right.
In countries around the world, including Pakistan, the rise of misinformation and fake news has become a pressing issue. False narratives and propaganda can spread quickly on social media, leading to panic, violence, and the erosion of public trust. However, the solution to this problem should not be through sweeping laws that give unchecked power to the government to silence critics. Rather, the focus should be on promoting media literacy, supporting fact-checking initiatives, and creating a legal framework that targets malicious actors without infringing on the rights of ordinary citizens.
The key issue is the bill’s broad and vague definitions of what constitutes “fake” or “false” information. The bill does not provide clear criteria for determining what is “likely to cause unrest,” which opens the door for subjective interpretations that could be used to target political opponents or independent journalists. The risk of misuse is particularly high when considering the political climate in Pakistan, where journalists and activists often face intimidation and harassment from state actors.
The protests from opposition lawmakers and journalists are a testament to the growing unease among civil society about the potential impact of the PECA Amendment Bill. For years, Pakistan’s media has been an essential tool for checking the power of the government and exposing corruption and human rights abuses. However, the space for independent journalism has been shrinking, with media outlets facing increasing pressure from both state and non-state actors. The PECA Amendment Bill, with its punitive measures against online speech, could further curtail press freedom and intimidate journalists from reporting the truth.
Pl watch the video and subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality podcasts:
Journalists have long been a target of harassment, and the bill’s provisions may amplify the risks they already face. Given that social media has become a vital platform for sharing information, the government’s attempt to regulate online content through the creation of new authorities like the Cybercrime Investigation Agency and Social Media Protection Tribunal raises alarm bells. These bodies, while tasked with combating harmful online content, could potentially be used as tools to target independent media and suppress dissenting voices.
Moreover, the bill fails to provide adequate safeguards against abuse of power. There is no clear mechanism for ensuring transparency and accountability in the decisions made by the new regulatory bodies. If unchecked, these entities could operate with impunity, stifling free speech and restricting the public’s access to diverse viewpoints.
While the need for regulation of online content is undeniable, it must be done in a way that respects the fundamental rights of individuals and ensures that freedom of expression is not compromised. The PECA Amendment Bill, in its current form, risks going too far in limiting these freedoms. A more balanced approach is needed—one that targets genuinely harmful content, such as incitement to violence or terrorism, while protecting the rights of individuals to express their opinions, even if they are critical of the government.
Before the PECA Amendment Bill 2025 is passed, it must be carefully scrutinized and revised to provide clear definitions of “fake” and “false” information, set out transparent procedures for content removal, and ensure that there are strong checks on the power of regulatory bodies. Additionally, there should be safeguards in place to protect journalists, bloggers, and activists from reprisals for exercising their right to free speech.
Pakistan is at a crossroads when it comes to balancing the regulation of digital spaces with the protection of fundamental freedoms. As the debate over the PECA Amendment Bill continues, the government must be mindful of the potential long-term consequences for press freedom, civil society, and public trust. A fair and transparent regulatory framework is necessary, but it must not come at the cost of silencing dissent or curtailing free speech.
The PECA Amendment Bill 2025 is a critical moment in Pakistan’s evolving relationship with social media and free speech. While regulation is necessary to combat the dangers of misinformation and online hate speech, the bill, in its current form, threatens to undermine the very freedoms it seeks to protect. It is crucial for lawmakers to consider the broader implications of such legislation, ensuring that any regulatory measures taken do not encroach upon the fundamental right to free expression. Only through careful, balanced reform can Pakistan move forward in the digital age without sacrificing the freedoms that are the foundation of a democratic society.