In a stark display of the state’s iron grip on free expression, a man was recently booked under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) for criticizing clerics in Bannu on social media. While no one should excuse unbecoming language, one must ask: is the state’s heavy-handed use of PECA a necessary measure against cyber malfeasance, or a dangerous tool to silence dissent? According to the FIR, the accused condemned the clerics for failing to announce the Ramadan moon-a comment that, though unsavoury, underscores a broader malaise in our public discourse. Instead of fostering a space for healthy debate, the authorities have weaponized PECA to enforce conformity. When every citizen’s social media post risks turning them into a target for prosecution, we are witnessing not the triumph of justice, but the decay of democratic freedom. Originally crafted to combat cybercrime and protect digital citizens, PECA’s ambiguous and far-reaching provisions now serve as a catch-all mechanism to muzzle any form of dissent. Recent arrests have not only sparked outrage among journalists and activists but have instilled a pervasive climate of fear. When the mere act of expressing criticism-no matter how crude-is equated with criminal behaviour, the very foundations of free speech crumble. Our digital public square is gradually being replaced by an echo chamber, where only state-sanctioned narratives are permitted. Critics rightly argue that while civility in discourse is essential, the state’s overreach under PECA is a betrayal of public trust. This selective enforcement, which targets voices daring to question authority (even on matters as nuanced as religious pronouncements in Bannu) sets a perilous precedent. It signals a systematic clampdown on free expression that transcends mere law enforcement and ventures into the realm of authoritarian control. The chilling effect is undeniable: in this climate of fear, self-censorship has become the norm. The state’s machinery is no longer a guardian of justice but a formidable censor, silencing even those voices that are vital for holding the powerful accountable. Every unspoken word, every suppressed opinion, is a resounding testament to the erosion of our democratic ideals. We must ask ourselves: if criticism is met with such draconian measures, what becomes of truth and accountability? *