The right to free speech is the lifeblood of a democratic dispensation. Democracy cannot thrive if people are not allowed to express their disapproval and subject government policies to scrutiny, especially when those policies contradict fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. Free speech is not only essential for keeping the citizenry vigilant about their rights but also serves as a crucial check on all organs of the state, ensuring that no institution oversteps its authority and that the balance of power is maintained.
The right to dissent, critique policies, and expose government wrongdoing is fundamental to accountability and national progress. Any attempt to stifle constructive criticism risks transforming democracy into autocracy. History shows that states imposing draconian restrictions on free speech often slide into authoritarianism. As John F. Kennedy aptly put it, “Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed – and no republic can survive.”
To add, in countries where free speech is discouraged, ordinary citizens fear raising their voices against injustices. For instance, in Russia scores of people criticizing the government’s handling of Ukraine war have been jailed under vague laws on “spreading false information about the army”. This has resulted in widespread self-censorship, preventing people from discussing issues like economic mismanagement and corruption.
In other countries such as China, the suppression of doctors who tried to warn the world about COVID-19 pandemic in its teething period led to a global health crisis that could have been mitigated with preemptive measures. In addition, in Bangladesh, the digital security act has been used to arrest individuals for facebook posts criticizing the government. The chilling effect of such law has discouraged investigative reporting, leaving public uninformed about major national issues.
Laws should not be weaponized to suppress opposing voices.
Restricting free speech also carries severe economic repercussions. Investors are wary of putting their money into countries where free speech is under siege. When the government suppresses economic criticism, financial mismanagement remains unchecked leading to economic decline. Moreover, countries that stifle free speech often see a humongous decline in intellectual progress. If intelligentsia of a country cannot freely delve into polemics and challenge official narratives, innovation suffers.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, attempts are underway to stifle free speech. Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to express their opinions freely. However, the latest amendment to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) poses a significant threat to this fundamental right. This amendment appears to be designed not to curb misinformation but to suppress critics, silence journalism, and erode digital freedoms, enabling the government to act without opposition.
The government claims that these changes are necessary to curb misinformation, but in reality, the amendment criminalizes “fake news” without providing a clear definition. Under the new Section 26(A), individuals disseminating “false information” online may face up to three-year imprisonment and a fine of two million rupees. Alarmingly, the amendment does not define what constitutes “fake news” or “false information,” effectively granting the government unchecked power to categorize any news as false and prosecute its disseminators. As George Orwell warned in 1984, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” The erosion of this principle is a clear step toward authoritarianism and fascism.
Adding to the worries, cases under this act will be heard by a government-constituted tribunal rather than an independent court. This means the government will act as both complainant and adjudicator, bypassing judicial oversight and limiting judicial independence. A democracy cannot function where the rule of law is replaced by arbitrary governance.
Particularly troubling is Section 2R(h), which allows the removal or blocking of online content that casts aspersions on any entity, including the judiciary, armed forces, Majlis-e-Shura, or a provincial assembly. This provision truly reveals the true intent behind the amendment which is not to combat misinformation, but to silence voices critical of the government and its institutions. As Noam Chomsky once stated, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
While the government justifies these amendments as necessary to combat fake news and protect national security, the vague and broad language of the law raises serious concerns about censorship and state control. Journalists fear that this law will be weaponized against them if they publish reports critical of government policies or sensitive political issues. Likewise, ordinary citizens risk undue surveillance, content removal, and potential criminal charges simply for engaging in political discourse online. The right to criticize one’s government is not just a privilege – it is a necessity for a smooth functioning democracy.
Following the enactment of the amendment, journalists, lawyers, and civil society organizations have strongly opposed it, challenging its validity in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates Article 19 of the Constitution. International human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have also condemned the law, warning that it could stifle dissent and suppress independent journalism.
Moreover, the chilling effect of such laws discourages investigative journalism, which plays a crucial role in exposing corruption and human rights violations. Countries that have imposed stringent restrictions on press freedom often experience a decline in democratic ethos and increased state control over public discourse. “A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad,” said Albert Camus, highlighting the necessity of press freedom in preserving democratic integrity.
Given the widespread backlash and justified concerns from all stakeholders, legislators must clearly define “false information” or “fake news” to prevent political misuse of this law. Without such safeguards, governments will continue to exploit vague legal provisions to silence dissenting voices. Journalists, in particular, and citizens in general will remain in a constant state of fear, hesitant to question unjust policies or raise their voices against breaches of fundamental rights. This chilling effect on free expression could ultimately erode democracy and civil liberties, leading to a state of authoritarianism. As Mahatma Gandhi profoundly stated, “Freedom of speech and civil liberty go hand in hand. When one is taken away, the other withers.”
The importance of free speech cannot be overstated. It is a fundamental pillar upon which the entire democratic edifice rests. Suppressing it does not eliminate dissent but instead forces it underground, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust between the state and its citizens. History has shown that governments that curtail freedom of speech often face greater resistance, as the people ultimately demand their rights. The Arab Spring, the fall of authoritarian regimes, and various pro-democracy movements worldwide have demonstrated that suppression only fuels discontent.
To cap it all, to safeguard democracy, transparency, and fundamental rights, it is imperative that lawyers, journalists, civil society, and especially the courts resist any legislation that threatens the freedom to speak. Laws should not be weaponized to suppress opposing voices. Instead, they should be designed to protect the people’s rights while ensuring that those in power remain accountable to the public. Pakistan’s democratic future depends on its ability to uphold constitutional rights and ensure open dialogue. As Thomas Jefferson aptly stated, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
The writer is an advocate and a columnist based in Quetta.