By Qamar Bashir
Ministry of Information, you will find six acts, nine Ordinances, seven regulations, three codes of conduct, and fourteen rules that are
enacted to directly govern the media in some way. In fact, there are over 52 laws, rules, regulations, and codes of conduct that have a bearing on media freedom and give the government enough clout to gag and re-gag the media, leaving a small window for them to enjoy the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by article 19 of the constitution.
Now another amendment in the PEMRA, Act 2023 has been introduced, redefined the disinformation as verifiable false, misleading, manipulated, created or fabricated information which is disseminated or shared with the intention to cause harm to the reputation of or to harass any person for political, personal, or financial interest or gains without making an effort to get other person’s point of view or not giving it proper coverage and space, but does not include misinformation”.
This definition, when carefully examined, has expanded its scope to include not
only people who create news, but also those who disseminate and share it. It
follows that journalists who bring in the news, the TV network or newspaper that
publish and broadcast the news, and all members of the public who read, watch, or
share the suspected disinformation news will all be charged under this statute.
At the same time, it gives journalists, newspapers, and channels the right to seek
the opinion and point of view of the "other person" and give it proper coverage and
space," which means that, as of now, journalists, newspapers, and channels are
bound by law to take the point of view of the PTI chairman, who yet has not been
convicted under any Pakistani law, but has been barred from appearing in any
media. Though he has been charged of corruption, insurgency, planning attack on
the state, violating the country secrecy act and many other omissions or
commissions but media can neither cover his or his party's engagement or allow
him to defend the charges by providing him proportional space in the media.
failing which they would by imposing a fine starting from 1 million rupees to 10
million rupees.
The definition has also rendered the amendment's purpose pointless. It has
contracted rather than expanded its scope. The scope of 'disinformation' has been
limited to 'the reputation' of or to 'harass' any 'person' for political, personal, or
financial gains or interests. It indicates that the scope of disinformation is limited
to individuals and does not include disinformation pertaining to the national or
international financial, economic, political, security, or foreign affairs sectors. In
doing so, it has given journalists, newspapers, and channels carte blanche to
disseminate any national or international disinformation.
The author of the definition has weakened the efficacy and reach of other media
laws in an effort to restrict media freedom. It had caused significant difficulty for
the regulator. Before issuing any charge sheet to any journalist, newspaper, or
channel, PEMRA now requires the collection of introvertible evidence
demonstrating that the alleged disinformation was created, manipulated, and
fabricated for 'political', 'personal', or 'financial' gain.
Throughout my service of over 30 years, I was intimately familiar with PEMRA's
capabilities and capacities. PEMRA has neither the skills, capabilities, nor the
capacity to collect any type of concrete and intro convertible evidence against any
journalist that could establish any 'political gain' that cannot be quantified by any
stretch of the imagination, nor does it have any mechanism to collect evidence of
personal or financial gains.
The PEMRA will likely receive input from law enforcement agencies, such as the
FIA, IB, FBR, or ISI, if they are able to quantify and prove intangible political,
financial, or personal gains in order to file charges against media personnel. Even
if the agencies provide evidence, the indictment will not withstand the court's
rigorous standards and will likely be thrown out after one or two proceedings. In
fact, this definition appeared to be person-specific to journalists such as Imran
Riaz, Moed Pirzada, Raza Rumi, Shaheen Subahi, and others, and to have no
bearing on public, national or international interests.
The new definition introduced by the government in the PEMRA Act protects
individuals, in contrast to legislation enacted in many other nations that places the
public interest above all else. Singapore's Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act (POFMA) defines disinformation as "false or misleading
information that is created, published, or shared with the intent to deceive the
public." Even more precise and well-considered is the French definition of
disinformation. The French law defines disinformation as "any false or misleading
information that is intentionally disseminated." The German law on social
networks defines disinformation as "any intentionally false or misleading
information that is disseminated." The Russian law on information, information
technologies, and information protection defines disinformation as "information
that is intentionally deceptive or distorted and spread with the intent to deceive.
Since the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, the U.S.
Congress and Senate cannot pass any laws pertaining to the media or free speech.
India has a number of laws relating to disinformation, although they are not
expressly labelled as such. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, however, require social media
platforms to remove or disable access to content deemed detrimental or deceptive.
Freedom to hold an opinion and free expression are fundamental for a thriving
democracy. This right is recognized by various international instruments including
the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Right to information (RTI) is a
primary element to hold an opinion and independent and diverse media also play a
central role in informing people and enabling them to hold their opinion.
Nevertheless, an enabling legal framework to: promote and protect people‟s right
to information; curb/ restrict secretive practices of the government; and ensure
independence and diversity of media is essential. In Pakistan, the right to freedom
of expression and speech had been recognized by the Constitutions of 1956 and
1962. The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 includes a specific provision (Article 19)
on freedom of expression and speech. However, the right to information was
recognized as a constitutional right through the Eighteenth Amendment in 2010.
The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (PECA) criminalizes a number of
activities related to electronic media, including the transmission of false or
misleading information. Section 20 of PECA specifically prohibits the publication
of false information that is intended to harm the reputation of a person or
institution. The PPC contains a number of provisions that deal with defamation,
including Section 499, which makes it an offense to publish anything that is likely
to harm the reputation of another person. The Defamation Ordinance 2002: This
ordinance provides a civil remedy for defamation. It allows a person who has been
defamed to sue the person who defamed them for damages. Even the Prevention of
Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (PECA) of Pakistan supports a reasonable definition
of disinformation. Section 20 of PECA defines misinformation as "any information
that is false, misleading or inaccurate and which is intended to deceive or cause
harm."
It is fascinating to note that none of these laws actually impose censorship, but
rather the worst form of self-censorship, which has negative effects on both
individuals and society as a whole. It places journalists in a constant state of dread
when expressing ideas or opinions, restricts diversity of thought, and stifles
intellectual discourse. It has a debilitating effect on open and honest
communication and creates a culture of fear in which individuals are reluctant to
discuss significant issues or challenge prevailing norms. It takes a significant toll
on mental and emotional health, exposes media professionals to anxiety and stress,
inhibits personal development and self-expression, and discourages truth-telling.
Therefore, rather than finding methods to limit the media, societies should promote
an atmosphere where free speech is protected and respected. Regarding this
amendment, the President, as head of parliament, is likely to send it back to the
Prime Minister for reconsideration, as it is flawed and ineffective. By that time,
this assembly will have been dissolved, and the amendment will most likely die of
natural causes.
