On Thursday, Federal Minister for Interior Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan threatened to block all social media websites that hosted blasphemous content against Islam. He emphasised that the government would go to any extent in blocking such sites if they refused to cooperate. Nisar’s statement came soon after the Islamabad High Court (IHC) ordered to remove blasphemous content from digital media. In the past, access to social media and video hosting websites such as Facebook and YouTube have been blocked as a kneejerk reaction to presence of allegedly blasphemous contents. Eventually, however, the blockade had to be lifted due to popularity of social media platforms and the absurdity of banning the entire platform. Even though YouTube remained banned for over three years, people still managed to find alternate means to access the bulk of the educational content that the platform had to offer. Since January, Facebook users and bloggers have been targeted for alleged anti-state and blasphemous activities. Some were kept in illegal detention for weeks but investigations could not prove anything. State must not encourage the bogey of blasphemy that has been the persistent agenda of self-serving clerics. Hundreds of Pakistanis are languishing in jail due to blasphemy charges, which are often levelled to settle personal scores. False cases of blasphemy in the past have proven to be quite torturous for the accused individuals and their families as the courts are hesitant to grant bail in most cases. The minister needs to be reminded that blocking social media websites would be akin to attacking freedom of expression, as these sites are platforms for social networking, citizen journalism and airing of public grievances. The interaction between authorities and politicians and citizens is becoming easier with new media. Despite the enactment of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) last year, uncertainty prevails over how the law would be implemented in curbing dangerous material. The definitions are vague and easy to misuse. Further, the imposition and lifting of the YouTube ban makes it abundantly clear that removing specific content from social media websites hosted in foreign countries with strong freedom of speech laws is an uphill task. It cannot be taken for granted that an internationally available online platform would remove any content only because it is objectionable under Pakistani law. Perhaps the best available approach is to aim to identify only such blasphemous content that is posted from Pakistan and then activating diplomatic channels to persuade the relevant social media website to remove such content and in case of anonymous accounts, even ask for help in identifying the author for prosecution under relevant laws. The government needs to understand that at the moment, removing blasphemous content from social media is more a matter of sophisticated international diplomacy rather than outright rejection of modern tools of public expression. Further, the state also needs to remain cautious when acting against blasphemous content, as they should not trample freedom of expression. *