Pakistan’s Amended Electronic Crimes Act: A Chilling Effect on Free Speech and Journalism
Pakistan’s recent amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), enacted in January 2025, have sparked widespread concern among journalists, activists, and human rights organizations. The amendments, ostensibly aimed at combating the spread of "false or fake" information online, establish a Social Media Regulation and Protection Authority with broad investigative powers and tribunals authorized to impose harsh penalties, including up to three years in prison and hefty fines. While the government, represented by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, argues that these measures are necessary to regulate the proliferation of misinformation on social media, critics fear the amendments will be weaponized to suppress dissent and stifle critical journalism.
The amendments represent a significant escalation of the PECA’s already controversial reach. Since its initial enactment in 2016, the law has been criticized for its vague and overly broad provisions, which have been repeatedly used to target journalists, activists, and other voices critical of the government. Arbitrary arrests, content takedowns, and widespread censorship have become commonplace under the guise of combating cybercrime and protecting national security. The newly added focus on criminalizing misinformation, without clear definitions or safeguards against misuse, further exacerbates these concerns. It creates a chilling effect on online discourse, making it increasingly risky for journalists and citizens to question those in power or expose corruption.
The underlying premise of criminalizing misinformation – the belief that legal punishment can effectively eradicate falsehoods – is fundamentally flawed. This approach fails to address the complex social, technological, and educational factors that contribute to the spread of misinformation. Experience from other countries, such as Singapore and Russia, demonstrates that such laws are often ineffective at curbing misinformation. Instead, they tend to erode public trust in official sources, as enforcement is often perceived as arbitrary or politically motivated. They also create an information vacuum by suppressing independent media and alternative narratives, ultimately exacerbating the very problem they purport to solve.
The case of Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, introduced in 2019, serves as a cautionary tale. Despite granting authorities sweeping powers to demand corrections or removals of allegedly false content, misinformation remains prevalent in Singapore. Similarly, in Russia, misinformation laws have primarily been used to control narratives and suppress dissent, rather than to promote factual accuracy. These examples highlight the inherent limitations of a legalistic approach to combating misinformation.
The core issue with criminalizing misinformation lies in the misdiagnosis of the problem. Misinformation flourishes not simply because it exists, but because individuals believe it, share it, and use it to reinforce their existing biases. Legal penalties are insufficient to address these underlying social and psychological factors. Effective strategies for countering misinformation require a long-term, multi-faceted approach that includes robust media literacy programs, independent fact-checking initiatives, and support for quality journalism. These solutions are more challenging and time-consuming than passing restrictive legislation, but they offer a far greater chance of success.
Rather than introducing new laws that curtail freedom of expression, Pakistan should focus on strengthening its existing legal framework. Section 505(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code already criminalizes statements that incite violence or hatred between different communities. Similarly, the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 provides legal recourse for individuals whose reputations have been harmed by false statements. By empowering and effectively implementing these existing laws, Pakistan can address the genuine harms caused by misinformation without resorting to heavy-handed measures that undermine democratic values. Investing in media literacy education, supporting independent fact-checking organizations, and fostering a vibrant and diverse media landscape are far more effective strategies for combating misinformation than criminalizing speech. This approach fosters a more informed and resilient citizenry, better equipped to navigate the complexities of the digital age. The focus should be on empowering citizens with critical thinking skills and access to credible information, rather than attempting to control the flow of information through restrictive legislation. A healthy democracy thrives on open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas, not on fear and censorship.
