EDITORIAL: With the disruption of the social media platform X now having entered its second month, the authorities seem to be utterly confused about the best way to explain the logic behind imposing these curbs and defend themselves against the fierce criticism they have been facing on account of their actions.
The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA), which under the law is the only entity with the power to block websites in the country, has completely failed to explain the rationale behind this unofficial ban to the public or in the Sindh High Court (SHC), which has been hearing a petition against the restrictions imposed on X.
The PTA’s position on the matter has been quite questionable for some plausible reasons. It has been found to be directing media queries regarding X being to the interior ministry on the one hand, and on the other, quite ludicrously, attempting to mislead the SHC by claiming that the social media platform was actually working normally. All the while, it has continued to flagrantly flout a court order directing the restoration of X.
Meanwhile, even government ministers have resorted to giving out entirely bizarre statements when questioned about the disruption of the microblogging website, with Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi stating that Pakistan needed “better laws” to regulate free speech on the internet in a bid to stem “false allegations”.
One can only wonder at the irony of the statement being uttered in a country where free speech rights are already throttled at the drop of a hat, and dissenting voices are hounded into silence with ease. In such an environment, do we really need more restrictions on free speech?
Furthermore, the minister’s bid to solidify his argument by citing the case of TikTok, which he claimed has been banned in the US, is misleading, given that the bill passed in the US House of Representatives pertaining to the Chinese app hasn’t become law yet, and is set to face a tough time in the US Senate.
Moreover, the guarantees offered by the First Amendment of the US constitution, protecting the right to freedom of expression, will ensure that any such law is bound to run into stiff constitutional challenges in American courts. One cannot help but wonder why our authorities are so quick to cite those examples from the West that help validate their narratives, yet conveniently remain silent on those that challenge them.
Even if the purported reasons for the curbs on X are on account of smear campaigns launched on the platform, there are laws present in the country’s statute books that deal with those situations. The Pakistani state needs to understand that in the digital age with a citizenry that is increasingly well aware of its rights, its traditional knee-jerk reaction to any difficult situation i.e., arbitrary bans, cannot be the answer anymore. In any case, in a country of 240 million people, it is practically impossible to silence every critical voice against powerful quarters.
At the end of the day, there are a few questions that the state must answer immediately: which authority has ordered the disruption of X? Under what law have these curbs been imposed? When will X be restored completely? If these restrictions cannot be explained under the law of the land, which entity will be held accountable for encroaching upon the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information?
After over a month of the public’s fundamental rights being flouted and its intelligence insulted through the inane explanations offered by officials, it is about time the authorities stopped deflecting the questions raised by citizens and the courts, and injected some transparency into the situation. Those responsible for this throttling of the digital space must explain themselves.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.