Across the globe, many countries are grappling with the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the regulation of information online. Recent developments from Pakistan and India shine a light on this contentious issue, as both nations try to navigate the murky waters of internet censorship and the preservation of civil liberties.
Pakistan has seen its internet freedom diminish significantly. The report by Freedom House, titled Freedom on the Net 2024, indicated Pakistan earned a dismal score of 27 out of 100, categorizing it among ‘not free’ countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This marks the 14th consecutive year of declining internet freedom globally, and Pakistan isn’t alone; there are 21 other countries sharing this unfortunate classification.
According to the report, the restrictive practices employed by the Pakistani government range from blocking social media platforms to arresting internet users for expressing political opinions. A troubling aspect highlighted was the increasingly frequent physical attacks or killings of individuals expressing dissenting views online. The data revealed shocking statistics: 79% of the population lives under regimes where arrests for online expressions are routine, and particularly during elections, 25 out of 41 surveyed countries had blocked websites or restricted access to social media.
On October 21, 2024, Zaki Abbas, writing for Dawn, noted how the report’s criteria assessed various metrics to gauge internet restrictions. Pakistan checked nearly all boxes, with significant disruptions to connectivity and the blocking of politically relevant websites. Alarmingly, the report's findings show how the government manipulates digital information, especially surrounding electoral processes.
Meanwhile, India has been embroiled in its own battle over freedom of expression, particularly concerning the Information Technology (IT) Amendment Rules of 2023. The Bombay High Court recently delivered what many are calling a landmark judgment—a resounding victory for free speech advocates. The court struck down Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules, describing it as unconstitutional.
This pivotal ruling asserted the government could not assume the role of censor—judging which information was 'true or accurate.' Legal experts viewed the decision as reinforcing citizens' rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution, which protect equality before the law and freedom of speech, respectively. The provision under scrutiny allowed the setup of government Fact Check Units to sift through online content, potentially leading to arbitrary censorship.
The challenge to these Rules began when political satirist Kunal Kamra filed petitions leading the charge against what he viewed as government overreach. During the court proceedings, concerns over using vague terms like “fake” or “misleading” were emphasized as tools for potential censorship. The legal arguments included references to previous Supreme Court judgments, such as the landmark decision to strike down Section 66A of the IT Act due to its vagueness.
The Bombay High Court's decision highlighted the need for clearer definitions and guidelines, warning of the inherent risks of government control over what constitutes acceptable speech, especially on social media platforms. This ruling marked not only the court’s rejection of the excessive control over free expression but also affirmed the public’s right to engage freely online.
While these two nations walk the tightrope of regulating information, the echoes of censorship resonate through various social media platforms worldwide. A recent study by researchers from the University of Michigan unveiled how polarized political content moderation on platforms like Reddit is forming echo chambers, where users with differing opinions find their voices continuously stifled.
The research team analyzed over 600 million comments, noting how users who expressed political views contrary to subreddit moderators were often met with deletions of their content. This bias toward certain political orientations can skew perceptions of public opinion, creating divided online communities devoid of meaningful discourse. The researchers suggested this trend undermines democracy and may lead to misguided electoral beliefs, as users find themselves surrounded by filtered viewpoints.
Highlighting the importance of these findings, the researchers pointed out the universality of this issue across social media, extending to other platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok—all places where bias can unintentionally seep through moderation practices.
With freedoms on the line, the question remains: How can societies strive for greater openness and resist censorship, whether through government imposition or platform bias? The cases of Pakistan and India signify the broader global struggle to protect freedom of expression. Even as different approaches are adopted—from court rulings to public protests— the fight for fundamental rights remains at the forefront of the digital age.
