Complete website bans indicate lack of understanding

Islamabad:

While it took the Prime Minister’s intervention to reverse the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority’s (PTA) ban on Wikipedia, such arbitrary ban decisions by the Apex Internet regulator are nothing new.

It’s either because regulators don’t understand how the internet works, or because instead of blocking offensive or profane content, they block access to specific websites or applications so that a complete ban is easy. It is either considered His digital rights expert, Usama Khilji, thinks it’s the former.

“Politicians and regulators don’t understand how the internet works because if they did, they would realize that nothing on the internet broadcasts like television. “What you want to read and what you don’t.
“Banning websites is not the solution, so it’s important that people who understand the internet run the regulator. Since, we are the fastest growing market for application downloads and the internet, bans effectively deprive the entire populace of either information or a voice.”

Concurring with Khilji, Umer Gilani, a constitutional lawyer based in Islamabad, was of the view that the Constitution envisions reasonable restrictions on the right to information “and a complete ban is not a reasonable restriction.” He further said that regulating behaviour in the public sphere as per moral standards made sense but there was a need to draw a distinction between what falls in the public and private sphere.

“The internet falls in the private sphere because users have the choice of controlling what they view and read. Just because a few users are engaging with or posting objectionable content does not mean the entire country has to pay the price,” remarked Gilani.

It is pertinent to mention during the proceedings of the YouTube ban case back in 2013, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who was at the Lahore High Court at that time, had observed “in today’s digital age, information over the internet cannot be blocked but can be intelligently regulated.

There are no borders or walls that can limit this information from flowing into Pakistan, unless of course we shut down the internet completely and sever our links with the outside world.” However, Wikipedia’s ban, nearly a decade after Justice Shah’s observations, proves that the regulator has not rethought the banning policy.

When asked about this reliance on banning, Khilji replied:
“There is an obsession with controlling what happens on the internet because the regulator or policymakers cannot stomach the fact that the internet is becoming democratised and websites will not buckle to their censorship demands.” Answering a question regarding the adverse impact bans have on Pakistan’s growing technology market, Khilji said that arbitrary bans like the Wikipedia one shatter investor confidence.

“Technology related activities contributed some $3.5 billion to the country’s economy in 2022 and when they hear about the country’s banning culture they are less inclined to engage with the country or open up an office space here.” On the other hand, Gilani does see a slight ray of hope in the banning procedure adopted by the PTA in the Wikipedia ban.

“This time around the regulator gave 48 hours, in which they degraded the services to the website, to let Wikipedia explain their stance and then banned the website once the time had lapsed; instead of the usual banning without an opportunity for a hearing,” said Gilani, adding that this was a more nuanced way of banning not seen before. Despite the ray of hope the lawyer does not see an end to the banning culture anytime soon.