Aurora Magazine

Promoting excellence in advertising

Why has Khabaristan Times been blocked?

Updated Feb 03, 2017 11:36am
The blocking of KT implies that the State has taken it upon itself to dictate what is allowed for public consumption.

It appears as though Section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016 has struck (as expected). What reason is there to believe this? The blocking of Khabaristan Times (KT), a satirical news website.

According to a report in Dawn: “a source at the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) said the website had been blocked after receiving complaints about ‘objectionable content.’” Other than this vague statement, nothing more is known. The decision to block KT is shrouded in the same secrecy the blocking decisions taken prior to the enactment of PECA. Just as then, users would discover a website was blocked by trying and failing to gain access to it, similarly, that is how the ban on KT was discovered.

Prior to the law, blocking powers were exercised arbitrarily – directives were issued sometimes by the now defunct inter-ministerial committee, at other times the courts, or from influential quarters – all orders were routed through PTA, which then issued directives to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to institute IP-level blocks. After PECA, this arbitrariness is now seemingly ‘legal.’ The process (blocking through ISPs) remains the same. The difference is that now PTA can act unilaterally.

Section 37 of PECA, titled ‘Unlawful online content,’ copy pastes Article 19 from the Constitution of Pakistan and empowers PTA to interpret and apply the exceptions listed and take action against online content that falls foul of these exceptions. Furthermore, PTA is allowed to act in the absence of any rules or procedures with respect to implementing this section.

Due process requires that the party against whom action is initiated, is given notice as well as a chance to present their version. No such thing has happened in the case of KT. Announced through KT’s Facebook page, there is no official acknowledgment of the ban other than through the comment in the above-mentioned news report. Neither was KT officially notified. Section 37(4) states that any aggrieved person can appeal against the decision within 30 days and challenge the decision in court. What is the process for approaching PTA? What is the mechanism for the redress of grievances? More importantly, what is the criteria and procedure by which PTA makes decisions? No rules have been issued to date.


Due process requires that the party against whom action is initiated, is given notice as well as a chance to present their version. No such thing has happened in the case of KT.


The danger of this section being used to muzzle dissent was the foremost concern and reason cited for its omission. Clearly, these fears were not unfounded. Firstly, the question of whether these powers should rest with the PTA, and whether this section should exist in the law at all, was raised repeatedly. Article 19 remains unlegislated. The enunciation of how the terms are to be defined, interpreted and applied is a legislative and judicial function, not something to be left to the sole discretion of an executive authority, such as the PTA. Secondly, the internet plays host to all kinds of content. One can simply pick and choose what one wishes to read/view, or not read/view. There exist user tools to prevent access to content a user does not wish to see and which don’t affect the choice of others. Nobody is forcing KT’s content on anyone.

What does the blocking of KT mean if not that the State has taken it upon itself to determine and dictate what is permissible and what is not for public consumption? PECA may be the law, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a bad law that vests excessive power in a telecom regulator through Section 37, allowing the State to exercise discretion at will, and on a whim, to serve its own interests.

Farieha Aziz is a journalist and co-founder and director of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights.

Email


Your Name:


Recipient Email:



Comments (16)

1000 characters


RIYAZ BHATKAL IN karachi Feb 01, 2017 05:56pm

They spoke the truth

El Cid Feb 01, 2017 10:38pm

Banned for objectionable content indeed. Give me a break. Every thing is objectionable to some one or the other and his uncle. Freedom of speech is there to protect the objectionable.

Abraham Haque Feb 01, 2017 11:01pm

@RIYAZ BHATKAL IN karachi and we do not want the truth

AW Feb 02, 2017 12:56am

Executive authority should never be extended to what the public should hear and see. The job of the government (executive) is public service and not acting as the parent of the public. The people should be allowed to see and hear whatever they want and make individual assessments without interference of the government.

Kalimullah Feb 02, 2017 01:19am

If you don't know what they do, then why you write an column. Do some research first and this is first step in Journalism.

SYED HASSAN HASEEB Feb 02, 2017 02:16am

ban and closer that is all this govt is doing . they have spoiled the country other then lies we get nothing from them.

Arifshah Feb 02, 2017 04:58am

When I Come on Twitter,Some Body Block Pakistani Twit!WHA.Arifshah USA

mywahala Feb 02, 2017 05:47am

@RIYAZ BHATKAL IN karachi who's blocked?

AHA Feb 02, 2017 05:59am

It's nice paper. Govt is showing intolerance.

vvv Feb 02, 2017 07:16am

HAS read the khabristan online its present news with little bit Of masala, fun and chilly like ndeem f pracha style. There are so many off line and online source Of serious news . Then why ban little bit dosge Of humar as life is a already serious matter.

lmao Feb 02, 2017 12:02pm

omg the people commenting here. someone thinks they spoke the truth others think blasphemy. it was a satire page for god's sake. they wrote funny articles mocking the political class and ruling elite. there was literally no reason to ban them. like none at all except that it probably offended some pot bellied politician in islamabad.

Jogi Feb 03, 2017 12:10am

KT most probably would have released some documents on panama leaks which jas bwcome the achilles heel of Shareefs......

Reader Feb 03, 2017 12:02pm

@AW . Agreed, the government is there to serve the people, not to judge what they can see or hear, write or read, let individuals decide for themselves.

Khwarezmi Feb 03, 2017 01:44pm

Bhensa and their likes should be banned when they badmouth our Prophet (PBUH). That is our red line.

Dr. Rafiq khan Feb 03, 2017 10:37pm

Checked it out, Khabaristan Times was in the business of promoting fake news for comedy or parody. In a country like Pakistan with such a low literacy level and a low reading comprehension level, people were starting to believe that Khabaristan Times was reporting the truth for example Riyaz Bhatkal below.

Wakaz Feb 04, 2017 01:31pm

I was trying to find this article at the time when Bol was blocked. Libtards have their own interpretation of freedom of speech it seems