Islamabad: The Prime Minister’s intervention was needed to lift the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s (PTA) ban on Wikipedia, but such arbitrary ban decisions by the internet regulatory body are not new.
Either this is a failure of the regulator to understand how the internet works or an outright ban is seen as an easy way to block access to a particular website or application rather than blocking objectionable or offensive content. Digital rights expert Osama Khalji believes it is the former.
“Policymakers and regulators don’t understand how the Internet works because if they did, they would understand that nothing is broadcast to you on the Internet like television,” Khalji opined. Users get to choose what they want to read or watch and what not.
“It is important that internet savvy people head the regulatory body because banning websites is not the answer. Since, we are the fastest growing market for application downloads and the internet, banning effectively deprives the population of information or voice.”
Concurring with Khalji, Umar Gilani, a constitutional lawyer based in Islamabad, believed that the Constitution envisages reasonable restrictions on the right to information “and a complete restriction is not a reasonable restriction.” He added that it makes sense to regulate behavior in the public sphere according to ethical standards, but there is a need to distinguish between what comes in the public and private spheres.
“The Internet falls into the private realm because users have control over what they see and read. Just because a few users are engaging or posting objectionable content doesn’t mean the entire country has to. will have to pay the price,” Gilani remarked.
It should be noted that during the hearing of the YouTube ban case in 2013, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who was in the Lahore High Court at that time, remarked that “In today’s digital era, information cannot be blocked on the Internet, but caution is required.” be regulated by.
There are no borders or walls that can stop this information from getting into Pakistan, unless we shut down the internet completely and cut off our connections to the outside world. However, almost a decade after Justice Shah’s observations, Wikipedia’s ban proves that the regulator has not reconsidered its ban policy.
When asked about his reliance on bans, Khalji replied: “There is an obsession with controlling what happens on the Internet because regulators or policymakers cannot accept the fact that the Internet is becoming democratized and websites Their demands for censorship will not be accepted.” Responding to a question regarding the negative impact of bans on Pakistan’s growing technology market, Khalji said that arbitrary bans like Wikipedia One shakes investor confidence.
“Technology-related activities will contribute nearly $3.5 billion to the country’s economy in 2022, and when they hear about a country’s restrictive culture, they are less inclined to associate with the country or open office space here. ” Gilani, on the other hand, sees a glimmer of hope in the PTA’s banning of Wikipedia.
“This time the regulator gave 48 hours, during which they downgraded the website’s services, to let Wikipedia explain its position and then banned the website after the time was up. Instead of banning routinely without opportunity,” Gilani said, adding that this is a more nuanced way of banning that has not been seen before. Despite the glimmer of hope, Vakil doesn’t see the banning culture dying out anytime soon.
“People responsible for internet regulation have a traditional sense of morality and enforce it across the country. The ban will only stop when the regulator stops expecting that everyone has the same moral compass,” Gilani told Express. Speaking to the Tribune, he said.
