This is not freedom of expression. It is a cyber war. Under the pretext of free speech, a systematic campaign has been launched against Pakistan’s state and society. Such a war cannot be wished away or managed through ambiguity. It must be confronted with clarity, resolve and firmness.
The debate in Pakistan moved beyond free expression a long time ago. What exists today is a sustained information assault. It is organised. It is deliberate. And it is aimed squarely at Pakistan’s national interests.
When Pakistani soldiers are martyred, their sacrifice is mocked. When Pakistan faces hostility from India, its defensive capability is ridiculed. On national days, the very idea of Pakistan is reduced to cheap jokes. When relations with Afghanistan deteriorate, the Pakistani state is placed in the dock as if it alone is guilty. This is not free speech. This is an information war.
False videos are manufactured and circulated with speed and precision. Algorithms amplify them. Hostile narratives spread with ease. The skill involved is not accidental. It is professional. It is designed to destabilise.
There are social media actors who operate day and night to spread confusion and resentment inside Pakistan. Some function locally. Others operate from abroad. Their locations differ. Their objective does not. They seek division, distrust and paralysis. This reality is not speculative. It is documented. Professor Philip Howard, Director of the Oxford Internet Institute, addresses it directly in his report The Global Disinformation Order. He identifies countries where cyber troops are used to advance foreign influence through social media. Pakistan is one of them. If this subject commands serious attention at Oxford, its absence from serious debate in Pakistan is itself alarming.
Expression that operates within the limits of Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan remains protected speech.
Social media is no longer a neutral space. It has been weaponised. It functions as an instrument of conflict. The state can no longer afford confusion on this question. A clear position is required. International law is still evolving in this area, but its direction is not unclear. The emerging framework already provides guidance. The most authoritative reference is the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, published by Cambridge University Press. It was prepared by leading Western experts in international law. Its project director was the head of the United States Naval War College. It is not legally binding, but its influence is widely accepted.
The Tallinn Manual establishes a clear principle. State sovereignty does not end at physical borders. It extends into cyberspace. This includes social media platforms. Interference in this domain is interference in sovereignty.
It makes another point equally clear. Information warfare directed at a state constitutes aggression. In such cases, Article 2 subsection 4 of the United Nations Charter applies.
The manual goes a step further. It affirms that every state has the right to treat this kind of disinformation war as a formal military objective and to crush it accordingly. This is a term of profound legal significance. A military objective is one that any state may lawfully target and destroy. International law has always maintained a clear distinction between civilians and military objectives. Once something is designated as a military objective under international law, the use of force to neutralise it is regarded as a legitimate act of war.
A difficult question arises here. What if this warfare is conducted through civilians? What if social media figures or media operatives carry out these attacks? What if they are paid? Or what if they are used without full awareness? The Tallinn Manual is explicit. Such individuals, despite their civilian status, may be treated as part of the enemy’s operational force. These rules were not written in Pakistan. They were articulated by Western legal scholars. Pakistan is therefore not inventing a new standard. It is invoking an existing one. And it must do so without hesitation.
The remaining question is often raised in bad faith. How does one distinguish between free expression and information warfare? The answer is straightforward. Expression that operates within the limits of Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan remains protected speech. An expression that violates those limits and seeks to undermine the state crosses into information warfare. The framework for confronting this imposed information war already exists. It is clearly laid out in the Tallinn Manual. The law is taking shape. The threat is real. What remains is the will to act.
The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood