A significant increase in the number of Internet users worldwide — expected to surpass five billion by 2025 — could establish strong linkages on both market and societal fronts. However, the aggressive online censorship that countries across the world are adopting to curtail Internet freedom suggests something that is counterproductive. The cyber-crime bill adopted by Pakistan’s parliament this year is the latest one in a series of steps to curtail freedom of expression as well as civilians’ right to access information. China’s Great Firewall, state-sponsored blockages of thousands of dissident web pages in Russia and the Vietnamese Decree 72 are some of the most blatant censorship projects that either block or criminalise content that opposes the government. When the authorities in Pakistan decided to table an updated legislation against cybercrimes, it was expected to bring to light the plight of those being affected by online harassment and electronic frauds. Even though the present bill does suggest public welfare on paper, its controversial loopholes also give authorities too much power to censor and prosecute. Hence a policy that had been formed to strengthen defences against Internet crimes has not achieved much other than emerging as a major issue vis-a-vis freedom of expression in Pakistan. Although there is no denying the fact that the present legislation holds the power to significantly facilitate cybercrime victims, it is still under fire for conferring unchecked authority to the state. The bill should be applauded for being instrumental in the arrest of an online harasser in Nowshera early this year. However, the criminal offences listed in the bill were also quoted while jailing a 16-year-old Christian boy for alleged blasphemy after he had liked an ‘inappropriate’ photograph on Facebook. In September, the Punjab government served a prosecution notice under the same bill to a Pakistani actor and prominent activist, Hamza Ali Abbasi, after he had criticised the administration’s failure in overcoming child abduction on Facebook. Thus a single law being touted as highly viable in theory could have many different interpretations, some of which might not be necessarily good. Several ‘draconian’ provisions in the cybercrime bill are being opposed over fears that it would adversely impact the already precarious state of freedom of expression. This criticism is largely backed by the country’s constitution whose articles 19 and 19 (A) guarantee its citizens a right to freedom of speech and expression as well as to access information. Hence if the authorities actually aspire to establish an effective process of cyber-policing, they should do so while upholding civilian rights. Questions with regard to concrete definitions of what is punishable should be answered immediately, and that too in a detailed manner. All ambiguous clauses should be replaced with clear-cut provisions that can act as thresholds of freedom of expression. The bill, in its present form, does not hold the absolute authority to act against hate speech as well as incitement to violence. These shortcomings should also be addressed along with all other concerns raised with reference to attacks on fundamental human rights. Balancing Internet freedom with cyber justice is the immediate need of the increasingly vibrant Internet landscape in Pakistan. It is hoped that in its drive to wipe out criminal activities from its Internet domain, Pakistani administration would also consider the rights of those it is so keen on defending. *