By Qamar Bashir
I have the privilege to teach the new batch of fifteen Information Probationers Officers of
Information Group, the media laws at the Information Services Academy twice a week.
During our last session before I could start the lecture one of the bright students
interrupted and sought permission to ask a question. I always loved the questions and
gladly asked him to shoot. He said that lately ISPR Press Release has used the term
“digital terrorism”, what is it?. How does it impinges on the media freedom, the civilized
societies guard so dearly.
In the ensuing discussion many other questions emerged. What if a state institute charges
a section of its own people for committing digital terrorism ?. What if the charges of
committing digital terrorism are targeted at the leader of a popular political party and its
millions of voters in the country and around the world. Is it good public relationing to
alienate supporters and sympathizers of a particular party who might have voted for the
said party?. What if the alleged digital terrorism is emanating from other parts of the
world which falls outside the jurisdiction of our constitution and laws and law enforcing
agencies. Another question was; Has digital terrorism been defined and covered in any
media related laws of the country?.
Although a difficult challenge for a teacher, the teacher's job was made easy, if the
intended purpose of using the term “digital terrorism” was referring to hate speech.
Hate speech or expression of hate are covered in most of the international and national
laws of many countries, religions and customs. But hate speech has its own limits and
boundaries and can only be applied when certain specific conditions are met such as
communications that disparage individuals or groups based on attributes such as race,
religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
But digital terrorism does not fully qualify as a hate speech on many accounts. Digital
terrorism can safely be defined as the use of digital technologies, such as the internet,
social media, and other digital platforms, to spread fear, incite violence, or promote
ideologies that aim to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals through
intimidation, coercion, or violence. It can include activities such as cyberattacks on
critical infrastructure, dissemination of extremist propaganda online, recruitment and
radicalization through social media, and coordination of terrorist activities using digital
communication channels.
In Pakistan, laws such as the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA) and the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, along with provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, cover
aspects of digital terrorism and hate speech or related activities.
To qualify for committing digital terrorism, individuals or groups typically need to
demonstrate intent to spread fear, incite violence, or promote ideologies through digital
means, using technologies like the internet. Their actions must be illegal under relevant
laws, impactful in terms of harm or disruption caused, and motivated by political,
religious, or ideological goals. In some cases, a pattern of such behavior may be required
rather than a one-time occurrence. However, the specifics can vary between countries and
legal systems.
In contrast, the criticism of the government, its institutions, and departments is generally
considered a vital part of democratic discourse and is protected under free speech
principles. However, it crosses into hate speech or digital terrorism when it includes
threats, incites violence, or targets individuals or groups based on protected
characteristics like race, religion, or ethnicity.
In this background, the official press release by the ISPR on 7th June which used strong
words like perpetrators and instigators of the rebellion, fuelling hate and politically
driven rebellion against the state and its institutions targeted the leadership of the PTI,
which emerged as the largest party in the election held on 8th February 2024. In another
para the PR used equally strong words about the social media activists of PTI who were
termed as waging politically motivated and vested digital terrorism abetted by foreign
cohorts to try to induce despondency in the Pakistani nation, to sow discord among
national institutions and the people of Pakistan by peddling blatant lies, fake news, and
propaganda”.
Technically, the qualification of lies, fake news, and propaganda can be termed as digital
terrorism if these are used with the intent to spread fear, incite violence, or promote
ideologies that aim to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals through
intimidation, coercion, or violence. However, the mere act of spreading lies, fake news,
or propaganda may not always meet the threshold for digital terrorism.
Similarly, lies, fake news, and propaganda can contribute to hate speech, but they are not
the same thing as they can be used for other purposes. It's important to distinguish
between the two, as hate speech has specific legal implications and is often subject to
regulation in many countries.
The strongly worded ISPR press release and subsequent media campaign around it in the
digital and traditional media was successful in sending a clear position of the army
against those who allegedly, were creating wedge between the army and the people of
Pakistan.
But it was not free of risks either. It had the potential to reinforce perceptions of bias
within the military against the PTI, potentially deepening political divisions and eroding
trust between the military and PTI supporters.
Additionally, such a narrative accusing critics of "digital terrorism" and foreign
involvement could evoke strong emotional responses, which might rally some segments
of the population around the military and government, while simultaneously causing
skepticism and decreased confidence among those who feel targeted.
While aiming to preserve the noble cause of national unity, using such strong words risks
alienating a large group of citizens, potentially undermining efforts to foster cohesive and
inclusive national dialogue. Additionally, the military's visible stance against a popular
political party may affect its reputation as a neutral and stabilizing force, leading to
questions about its role and impartiality in democratic processes.
Alternatively, ISPR could have achieved the intended objective by emphasized the
importance of responsible journalism, social media posts, and blogs, and the dangers of
misinformation in fueling tensions and destabilizing society, besides highlighting the
efforts of the Army in combating such misinformation and call on the public to verify
information before sharing it and stressing the need for unity and understanding among
different communities.
