‘Draconian’ law to control social media

The digital age has revolutionized the life of human beings, their means of communication and ways of conducting business.

Among the most significant advancements is rise of social media platforms, connecting billions of people worldwide. These platforms empower individuals, businesses, and organizations by facilitating instant communication, global outreach, and sharing of ideas. Social media is presently playing a pivotal role in mobilizing political movements, supporting humanitarian causes, and revolutionizing digital marketing.

However, the digital revolution has also given rise to numerous challenges. The most worrisome is the spread of fake news and disinformation. While social media has democratized access to information, it has also become a fertile ground for false narratives, propaganda, and cybercrimes, impacting individuals, communities, and even national security. The rise of fake news is a global phenomenon, with countries like the United States, India, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Romania, Ireland, Czechia, and others grappling with consequences of misinformation.

Pakistan ranks among the countries most vulnerable to fake news, as a considerable segment of its populace depends on social media platforms for news and information. In response to this growing threat, the Parliament has passed the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, which came into force on January 29, 2025 after receiving the President of Pakistan’s assent.

The amending law, purportedly meant to regulate social media, curb fake news, and protect citizens from online harm, has sparked heated debates and elicited strong opposition and protests, especially from journalists and human rights activists, for failing to create a balance between regulations and freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 has amended the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (XL of 2016) for ostensibly addressing evolving digital age challenges. One of its key features is the establishment of Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA) [section 2A], a body tasked with regulating social media platforms, ensuring online safety, and addressing unlawful content.

SMPRA enjoys the power to block or remove any content that violates law, issue guidelines for social media platforms, and impose fines for non-compliance. According to official quarters, it aligns with global practices, as countries part of the European Union (EU) have established similar regulatory bodies, such as the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), to monitor and counter disinformation.

Critics, however, argue that the unbridled powers granted to SMPRA could be abused/misused to suppress freedom of expression. For instance, this Authority can block social media platforms entirely if they fail to comply with its directives, raising concerns about censorship. This contrasts with the United States, entrusting regulation of social media largely to private companies, with minimal government intervention.

In the United States, platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) are responsible for content moderation, guided by their own policies and community standards. This approach has faced criticism for facilitating dissemination of misinformation; however, it simultaneously demonstrates a dedication to free speech, as protected by the First Amendment of Constitution of the United States.

The debatable provision of amended law is the regulation of “unlawful or offensive content”, as per newly-inserted section 2R in the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (XL of 2016). This section defines “unlawful or offensive online content” as material that incites violence, promotes terrorism, or spreads fake news.

SMPRA can issue directives to social media platforms to remove such content or suffer penalties on failure to comply. This provision is similar to laws prevalent in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where strict regulations are in place to combat online content that threatens national security or public order. Unlike these countries, Pakistan has a written Constitution that ensures the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press.

In Saudi Arabia, the Anti-Cyber Crime Law and Global Digital Content Safe Harbor Law criminalize the spread of fake news, holding social media platforms responsible for content published by their users and imposing severe penalties, including imprisonment and hefty fines.

Similarly, in the UAE, article 52 of Federal Decree-Law No. 34/2021 prevents the spread of false, malicious, or misleading information that infringes Cybercrime Law and prohibits the dissemination of false information harming the state or public order. Such laws have attracted wide criticism for their use to suppress dissent and free speech.

On the contrary, the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) focuses on transparency and accountability, requiring platforms to provide clear mechanisms for content moderation and appeals. DSA also emphasizes the importance of fact-checking and media literacy to combat fake news, rather than relying solely on punitive measures.

The amended Pakistani law also establishes the ‘Social Media Protection Tribunal’ to adjudicate cases related to online content and appeals against SMPRA’s decisions. The Tribunal is required to decide cases within 90 days, ensuring timely resolution of disputes. This provision is similar to the European Union’s approach, where platforms are mandated to provide transparent mechanisms for content moderation and appeals.

The Tribunal’s composition, which includes government-appointed members, has raised concerns about its independence. On the contrary, the United States relies on judicial oversight to ensure fairness in content moderation cases, with courts playing a key role in balancing free speech and regulation. For example, in cases involving social media platforms, the courts of the United States often weigh the First Amendment rights of users against the platforms’ rights to moderate content. This judicial oversight provides a check on potential abuse of power, ensuring that content moderation decisions are fair and transparent.

One of the most controversial provisions of the amended Pakistani law is section 26A that provides strict penalties for spreading false or fake information. Individuals found guilty of disseminating fake news can face imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to two million rupees. This provision has become a source of dispute and controversy.

Laws of such nature exist in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, where spreading false information can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment. However, critics argue that such a draconian provision could be used in our milieu to stifle legitimate criticism or investigative journalism. Comparatively, EU focuses on fact-checking and media literacy programmes to combat fake news, rather than criminalizing spread of misinformation.

EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation encourages platforms to work with fact-checkers and promote media literacy among users. This approach empowers individuals to identify and verify fake news, rather than relying on punitive measures that could potentially infringe free speech and freedom of press.

The amended law also establishes the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), replacing the Cyber Crime Wing of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). NCCIA is empowered to investigate and prosecute cybercrimes, including the spread of fake news. This is in line with global trends, as countries like China and India have established specialized cybercrime units to tackle online offenses.

In China, the Cybersecurity Law and the Social Credit System are in vogue to monitor and regulate online content focusing on maintaining social stability. However, these measures are often adjudged as draconian and restrictive of individuals’ freedom. In India, the Information Technology Act, of 2000, provides a legal framework for addressing cybercrimes, including spread of fake news. However, the law has been criticized for its vague provisions and potential for misuse.

EU emphasizes transparency and accountability in its cybercrime investigations, with strict oversight mechanisms in place. EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) ensures that people’s rights are protected in digital space, while also holding platforms accountable for data breaches and other cybercrimes. Pakistan has to date not enacted Personal Data Protection law. It makes the amended law further objectionable and vulnerable to abuse. It is imperative that before implementation of the draconian amended law, the state must ensure through legislation that citizens’ right of privacy under Article 14 of the Constitution in digital space is not breached—it is presently being done by various agencies on daily basis without any judicial oversight.

While the amended Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, reflects a growing global trend towards stricter regulation of social media and online content, its efficacy will depend on how it is implemented. The government should consider promoting media literacy, ensuring transparency in the operations of SMPRA and NCCIA, and encouraging self-regulation by social media platforms to effectively combat fake news while protecting freedom of expression.

It is essential to safeguard legitimate criticism and investigative journalism, ensuring that the law is not abused to suppress dissent and political disagreements. Ultimately, the responsibility lies not just with the government and social media platforms, but also with users, who must exercise caution and verify information before sharing it.

By working together, humanity at large can boost the power of social media for positive change while minimizing its negative impact. The way forward lies in fostering a culture of responsibility, transparency, and accountability in the digital age.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025