There is no way to quash criticism of an institution’s behavior or individuals within that institution - nor should it be enforced to where we end up like North Korea as a total terrifying joke of a country.
The only pertinent point out of the thread opener’s argument(whose goal posts he himself seems to change around to try and save the title) is the requirement of enforcement of civility in critique and the ability to be liable for serious criticism.
Which basically means that if today I accuse
@AgNoStiC MuSliM of being a corrupt individual as a fact and not my opinion, he can either ignore it or request that some proof of corruption be provided or legible arguments be made instead of just going with “corrupt” even though it is a definition and not an abusive insult.
This right of mine and his should be preserved and not quashed; with the state having little or no say in this matter other than the legal arm deciding whether my arguments are valid or not. Additionally, if I am accusing falsely then the accused should have the right to sue me for defamation and any damages claimed.
We already have framework for this process on an individual basis but I am not aware of instances where this is used institutionally.
Where the issue may require state intervention is when I claim that he is a son of a so and so piece of that who abuses and steals from orphans which I saw with my own eyes , and that good muslims should kill him in the way of Allah or to preserve Pakistan.. then the state should intervene through a law and tackle the matter.