Pakistani journalists protest after Senate passes bill allowing control over social media content
The bill, which was passed by the lower house of parliament last Thursday, grants the government extensive powers to impose heavy fines and incarcerate social media users for spreading disinformation.
Journalists rallied in the country's major cities, including Islamabad, Karachi, Faisalabad and Lahore, vowing to resist government efforts aimed at suppressing freedom of speech.
The approval by the Senate removes the last obstacle in the bill's path. It will now be sent to the President Asif Ali Zardari, who is likely to sign it quickly.
Under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, authorities would create an agency with the power to order the immediate blocking of content deemed "unlawful and offensive' from social media, such as content critical of judges, the armed forces, parliament or provincial assemblies.
Those failing to comply could face temporary or permanent bans. The law also makes spreading disinformation a criminal offense, punishable by three years in prison and a fine of Rs2 million ($7,150).
The latest development comes days after National Assembly passed it despite protests by the opposition. On Tuesday, Shibli Faraz, an opposition leader in the Senate, opposed the bill, saying it was being passed in a haste and without consulting all the stake-holders.
Zulfiqar Bukhari, a spokesman for former prime minister Imran Khan, said their Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf party, or PTI, would challenge the legislation in the court.
"The bill has been passed from the both houses of the parliament to silence the freedom of expression on the pretext of combating fake news, and no democracy-lover can support it,' he said in a statement.
Pakistan's media has faced growing censorship in recent years, but the government of Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif says the law is necessary to limit the spread of disinformation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Filipino Times
2 hours ago
- Filipino Times
Supreme Court voids impeachment case vs VP Sara, cites one-year bar
The Supreme Court has declared the impeachment complaint filed against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional, citing the one-year prohibition on filing successive impeachment cases. In its ruling, the High Court emphasized that the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the case due to the procedural safeguard enshrined in the Constitution. 'Therefore, the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment complaint,' SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced in a press briefing. Ting clarified, however, that the decision does not amount to clearing the vice president of all allegations. She explained that the ruling is limited to procedural grounds and does not delve into the merits of the accusations raised in the dismissed complaint. According to the Court's decision, a fresh impeachment case against Duterte may be filed once the one-year period lapses, specifically starting February 6, 2026.
The National
13 hours ago
- The National
US Senate panel narrowly approves Mike Waltz's nomination for UN ambassador
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday narrowly approved Mike Waltz, President Donald Trump's nominee for United Nations envoy, advancing his confirmation to the full Senate. The committee voted 12-10 in favour of Mr Waltz, who served as Mr Trump's national security adviser before being ousted in May during a scandal involving a Signal group chat between top aides and a journalist. There was no immediate word on when the full 100-member Senate might vote on the nomination. In a recent post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump urged senators to remain in Washington over the summer to vote on his nominees. Last week during his hearing, Mr Waltz pledged to pursue sweeping reforms at the United Nations, vowing to ' make the UN great again ' echoing one of Mr Trump's signature slogans. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr Waltz criticised the global body for what he called a bloated bureaucracy, anti-American bias, and a record of inefficiencies in conflict prevention. He vowed to target 'waste, fraud, and abuse endemic to the UN system.' Mr Waltz, a retired Army Green Beret and former Republican congressman from Florida, is among the last of Trump's high-profile nominees awaiting likely Senate confirmation.
Gulf Today
18 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Fearful of Trump's wrath, Congress abdicates its authority
Carl P. Leubsdorf, Tribune News Service The first six months of President Donald Trump's second administration have brought an unprecedented expansion of presidential power. They've also brought an unprecedented abdication of congressional authority. Fearful of incurring Trump's wrath — and perhaps primary opposition — Republican lawmakers have voted to confirm unqualified nominees, and rubber-stamped Medicaid cuts they acknowledged would hurt their constituents, often after proclaiming publicly they would never do so. Oversight committees, which are supposed to police the executive branch's management of legislation, are ignoring the administration's unconstitutional dismantling of statutory agencies and programmes — and complaining about the federal judges who are seeking to protect them. Some members who represent swing districts or states with thousands of Medicaid recipients may face the wrath of voters next year. All of them should. There's no question which member of Congress put on the year's most hypocritical legislative performance. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri spent two months righteously condemning pending GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, noting it serves over one million Missourians. For Republicans 'to build our 'big, beautiful bill' around slashing health insurance for the working poor,' he wrote in The New York Times, 'is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' He then voted for it, citing a modest addition funding rural hospitals. Then, he introduced a bill to repeal some of the Medicaid cuts, an empty gesture destined never to see the light of day — or the Senate calendar. Hawley was not the only GOP senator casting a damaging vote while expressing reservations. Sen. Lisa Murkowski gained some concessions for her Alaska constituents, then voted for the Trump package while expressing doubts about what she was doing. 'While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska,' she said, 'it is not good enough for the rest of our nation — and we all know it.' To be clear: the Senate would have rejected it had either Hawley or Murkowski voted on their stated principles. There was even less GOP resistance when the administration asked Congress to cancel $9 billion it had previously voted for, most for health and food aid to poor countries, the remainder for public radio and television. Though the cuts will shut small public radio outlets in many states, most Republican senators kept silent as Democrats denounced their impact. Only two, Maine's Susan Collins and Murkowski, opposed the measure, safe votes since the administration had enough support without them. The Senate's hypocrisy was matched in the House. Sixteen Republicans vowed resistance to the Medicaid cuts drafted by the House Budget Committee. 'Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent,' they wrote GOP leaders. 'Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers.' Signatories were Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim, Ca.; Juan Ciscomani, Az.; Rob Bresnahan Jr., Pa.; Chuck Edwards, NC; Andrew Garbarino, Michael Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis, NY; Jen Kiggans and Robert Wittman, Va.; Jefferson Van Drew, NJ; Don Bacon, Ne; Dan Newhouse, WA.; Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ia.; and Jeff Hurd, Co. But all 16 subsequently backed it after gaining an increase in the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which benefits mainly middle- and upper-income taxpayers. All 16 later acquiesced in even more sweeping Medicaid cuts added by the Senate. Legislative issues were not the only places where GOP senators abandoned stated principles amid administration pressure. Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Joni Ernst of Iowa cast the decisive votes to confirm the two most manifestly unqualified Trump Cabinet secretaries after obtaining promises the two nominees abandoned once approved. Cassidy said Secretary of Health and Services-nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., if confirmed, 'will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' recommendations without changes.' Soon after taking office, Kennedy removed all 17 panel members, replacing some with outspoken critics of government-mandated immunization for the nation's children. Ernst expressed concern about Secretary of Defense-nominee Pete Hegseth's stated opposition to women in combat roles and sought a commitment to having a senior-level military official dedicated to sexual assault response and prevention. 'Women will have access to ground-combat roles, given the standards remain high,' Hegseth testified. While he has not reversed the Obama administration's decision placing women in combat roles, he announced a review of physical fitness standards that could have that effect. Hegseth has not yet announced an official to monitor sexual assault issues, but he has continued his purge of high-level women officers, most recently removing the US Naval Academy's first female superintendent. Both Cassidy and Ernst face re-election races in 2026, and both feared Trump-endorsed primary challenges. In fact, some Trump supporters sought to pressure Ernst before she backed Hegseth — including a column by a potential primary foe, Iowa state Attorney General Brenda Bird. GOP-led congressional committees have been no better. The principal House investigative committee, which spent the last two years unsuccessfully trying to find a way to impeach Joe Biden, has switched its focus to whether the former president's declining health led aides to exercise his duties, despite the lack of evidence they did. Rather than probe the current administration's manifest irregularities, they're investigating hearsay about the prior one. One thing the past six months have shown is that, when casting votes or confirming nominees, there is little difference between so-called 'conservative' Republicans and so-called 'moderate' ones. When it comes to backing Trump, they are all on board.
