Freedom of Speech in Pakistan

[Psychic]

Who decides what is propaganda?
Who decides what is hate speech?
See where this is going?

Law which must be indiscriminately applied.
I already made myself very clear by providing the example of a certain Mr Waqas Goraya who was defended by many prominent media personalities in the name of freedom of speech.

There is also an example of an anchor banned by PEMRA for 2 months for uttering something against the Qadianis.
If PEMRA can ban one party - why does it always fail to apply the same regulations against the others(the ones you are defending)

One one hand you say that BOL violated PEMRA regulations on the other hand you say that there mustn't be any regulations.

In Pakistan freedom of speech has been abused by every party and I do not think that I need to prove this fact. If Shahid Masood (whom people call an est guy) can be handcuffed why can't others(who have done a lot more damage through their lies) be treated the same way

But freedom of speech is selective, & that is the problem here. There are uncountable examples. The bottom line is that whosoever is in power abuses his / her position to prevail over freedoms. Whether it is NS in 90s, Mushy in 00s or IK (read Establishment) right now, the pattern is the same.

And I do not disagree with this.

Who decides what is hate speech?

LAW.

This only applies to those who systematically target a religion, sect, race or ethnicity to spread anxiety and fear and in some cases, incite violence.

Dear friend, to one extent or another, most of us are dealing with populists, fascists, racists, & bigots in various governments around the world. The trend is towards authoritarianism and it must be resisted. The challenges of climate change, inequality, refugees, wars, & despotism are not going to be easily addressed. At some point Humanity must confront the challenges as a joint family. Climate change is expected to wipe out more than half the population of this world within a few decades. How would populists & despots help us confront it? How would constraints on freedom of expression help?

Threats to freedom of expression is just a global symptom, but one that can not be ignored.

The countries with the highest carbon emissions are those which have absolute freedom of speech. In Pakistan, the "establishment guy" is all aware of climate change and the threat it poses to Pakistan;and he doesn't need any free media to educate him about climate change.

 

[niaz]

A very good convo here @Joe Shearer @niaz when you have a little time to peruse.

@Chak Bamu you make some very salient points that I also share deep down in my convictions, kudos sir.

Hon Nilgiri,

It was very gracious of you to ask my opinion on this subject. However, without being modest, I would like to say that my ‘forte’ is limited to petroleum/energy and that I am a pigmy compared to Honourable Joe Shearer in intellect and depth of knowledge. Since you have asked my opinion, here it is for whatever it is worth. I would restrict my comments to Pakistan only.

Before we start, permit me to define ‘Freedom of Speech’.

According to Amnesty International 'Freedom of speech' is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'

First Amendment of the American Constitution grants the liberty to all Americans to criticize the government and speak their minds without fear of being censored or persecuted.

Freedom of speech probably always existed in Pakistan but certainly not the freedom of expression through the media as it was government-controlled until Musharraf allowed private TV channels from 2002 onwards.

Independent TV channels provided a mushrooming of TV journalists and anchors regrettably many of whom were totally unprincipled and spread outright lies. Pakistani laws to provide redress to the victims are totally ineffectual.

Even the current Prime Minister Imran Khan falsely accused Najd Seth of ’35’ punctures; insinuating that Najm Sethi as interim Chief Minister of Punjab had manipulated election results of 35 Assembly seats. However, when asked to provide proof, I heard him say on the TV that it was a just political statement.

Additionally, social media has provided a medium whereby mischief-makers can spread out & out lies. For example, on ‘Whats up’ I received a video showing Asia bibi (a victim of false blasphemy accusation) being received by the Pope 2 days after she was freed by the Supreme Court after 8 years incarceration in prison. In actual fact, she was then in Pakistan and left for Canada more than a year later.

It, therefore, cannot be denied that the right to freedom of expression is open to abuse by the unprincipled and the trouble makers. In his landmark essay “Hume, David. Essays Moral, Political and Literary. 1742, 1752.” David Hume said:

“It must, however, be allowed that the unbounded liberty of the press, though it be difficult--perhaps impossible--to propose a suitable remedy for it, is one of the evils attending those mixed forms of government. The liberty of the press, therefore, however abused, can scarce ever excite popular tumults or rebellion. And as to those murmurs or secret discontents it may occasion, it is better they should get vent in words, that they may come to the knowledge of the magistrate before it be too late, in order to his providing a remedy against them."

I fully support the right to the free speech as a legitimate inherent right of all humans as long as the right does intrude upon the freedom and dignity of their fellow human beings.

I would, therefore, support the laws restricting the right of free expression in cases where it incites one group to violence against another group or spread false rumors such as causing panic by crying ‘Fire’ when there is none, maliciously damaging rights & reputations of others, causing injury to other peoples culture of beliefs (Blasphemy).

 

[Chak Bamu]

We see what we are most familiar with up close in the broader context by every country/origin/background/location of ours....and they will be ever present, its in the human psyche intrinsically.

Just the details, perspectives and relative intensities vary from place to place and context to context. Sometimes the sides doing the free speech repression seemingly* flip entirely (in the larger political identification sense)....but the core rationale by the various authoritarians (whatever they identify as with other terminology) always seem to be the same, stemming from the authoritarian/totalitarian goal and thought process itself.

But its no coincidence the most developed and significant countries (as beset they are with the same intrinsic issues) of note today in truest sense.... are those that also have the broadest scope of free speech (and thus argument/debate) to flesh out those issues and afford the relevant release, churn and renewal rather than some ultimate zero-sum absolute (and ultimately facing dire, extreme, brutal consequence) from gambling the final fatigue tolerance of society to the pressured accumulations from authoritarianism.

Thus the larger allopathic truth for this condition seems to be quite obvious....even (in my opinion) a self evident and platonic, eternal one.

*seemingly....this is a long topic of its own

Oh boy! It was hard to keep my brain from exploding, but I managed it somehow.

I see what you are saying, but I guarantee that 99% of the readers would not get it. There is some value in simplicity of expression.

Hon Nilgiri,

It was very gracious of you to ask my opinion on this subject. However, without being modest, I would like to say that my ‘forte’ is limited to petroleum/energy and that I am a pigmy compared to Honourable Joe Shearer in intellect and depth of knowledge. Since you have asked my opinion, here it is for whatever it is worth. I would restrict my comments to Pakistan only.

Before we start, permit me to define ‘Freedom of Speech’.

According to Amnesty International 'Freedom of speech' is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'

First Amendment of the American Constitution grants the liberty to all Americans to criticize the government and speak their minds without fear of being censored or persecuted.

Freedom of speech probably always existed in Pakistan but certainly not the freedom of expression through the media as it was government-controlled until Musharraf allowed private TV channels from 2002 onwards.

Independent TV channels provided a mushrooming of TV journalists and anchors regrettably many of whom were totally unprincipled and spread outright lies. Pakistani laws to provide redress to the victims are totally ineffectual.

Even the current Prime Minister Imran Khan falsely accused Najd Seth of ’35’ punctures; insinuating that Najm Sethi as interim Chief Minister of Punjab had manipulated election results of 35 Assembly seats. However, when asked to provide proof, I heard him say on the TV that it was a just political statement.

Additionally, social media has provided a medium whereby mischief-makers can spread out & out lies. For example, on ‘Whats up’ I received a video showing Asia bibi (a victim of false blasphemy accusation) being received by the Pope 2 days after she was freed by the Supreme Court after 8 years incarceration in prison. In actual fact, she was then in Pakistan and left for Canada more than a year later.

It, therefore, cannot be denied that the right to freedom of expression is open to abuse by the unprincipled and the trouble makers. In his landmark essay “Hume, David. Essays Moral, Political and Literary. 1742, 1752.” David Hume said:

“It must, however, be allowed that the unbounded liberty of the press, though it be difficult--perhaps impossible--to propose a suitable remedy for it, is one of the evils attending those mixed forms of government. The liberty of the press, therefore, however abused, can scarce ever excite popular tumults or rebellion. And as to those murmurs or secret discontents it may occasion, it is better they should get vent in words, that they may come to the knowledge of the magistrate before it be too late, in order to his providing a remedy against them."

I fully support the right to the free speech as a legitimate inherent right of all humans as long as the right does intrude upon the freedom and dignity of their fellow human beings.

I would, therefore, support the laws restricting the right of free expression in cases where it incites one group to violence against another group or spread false rumors such as causing panic by crying ‘Fire’ when there is none, maliciously damaging rights & reputations of others, causing injury to other peoples culture of beliefs (Blasphemy).

Honorable @niaz sb, you are entirely too modest. Who says that your forte is only petroleum / energy? I have always been a fan of yours and it is always and pleasure and a treat to read your thoughts, even when I happen to be in disagreement.