Now truth will also be regulated. The much-talked-about Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Amendment) Bill 2025 has now been enacted. It was a ‘necessary’ move made wrongly, with too much gray area. The news of the bill sailing through the Presidency immediately sent shockwaves across journalistic and social circles.
Despite prior expectations, the signing of the bill still came as a surprise to many. Just hours before affixing his signature, President Asif Ali Zardari had reportedly assured that the bill would not be signed without taking journalist representatives onboard. Most stakeholders were left disheartened and speechless.
This reaction was normal. The newly amended law leaves too much room for interpretation, and heavily depends on who interprets it. The broad and vague definitions within the law leave it open to misuse. Now, specific authorities will arbitrarily decide what constitutes misinformation or harmful content.
This move threatens to choke whatever remains of independent journalism in this digital era. It is highly likely that it will be used as a tool for censorship. The government insists that PECA is meant to regulate "irresponsible journalism", hate speech, and character assassination on social media. But Pakistan already has defamation laws, and courts have long been used to settle disputes regarding misinformation.
Censorship is not a sign of strength; it is an admission of insecurity
In democratic societies, it is the public that holds the press accountable, rather than government-controlled tribunals with censorship powers. The ambiguous language of the law and the sweeping powers granted to regulatory authorities leave little doubt that its real target is dissent and independent journalism.
In any case, the amended law has created a climate of fear, where journalists will self-censor rather than risk prosecution. Censorship is not a sign of strength; it is an admission of insecurity. With the intention of protecting citizens from false information, the law is set to strengthen state control over online narratives. With these amendments, Pakistan joins the ranks of states that use vague cybercrime laws to suppress free speech, rather than protect digital spaces.
Before choosing to rubber-stamp the law without consultation, President Zardari should have realized that he himself had faced media trials and politically motivated cases in the past.
What remains to be seen is how this law will be enforced and who will decide the boundaries of truth and falsehood. If journalism is to be policed, where does that leave the public’s right to independent information? If the state becomes the sole arbiter of what is "responsible" reporting, can any dissenting voice truly be safe? These questions demand answers, not just from lawmakers but also from society as a whole.
