Cyber law draft could target journos, dissent
The Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) has warned that proposed provisions on rumours, misinformation, defamation and online content blocking in the draft Cyber Protection Act (Amendment) could expose journalists, critics and social media users to criminal prosecution.
HRSS is the latest among a number of rights and civil society organisations-including Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) and Tech Global Institute-to raise concerns over the proposed amendments, particularly provisions dealing with online expression.
In a statement on Thursday, HRSS said legislation was necessary to combat cybercrime, online harassment, blackmail, sextortion, revenge pornography, digital child abuse, identity theft, fraud and unauthorised access.
However, it stressed that such legislation must not undermine constitutional rights, freedom of expression, media freedom, privacy, access to justice or the right to dissent.
While acknowledging some positive provisions in the draft, HRSS said it also contains “ambiguous, overly broad and repressive” clauses that could pose serious risks to human rights.
If enacted in its current form, the organisation warned, the law could become a means of controlling expression, harassing journalists and suppressing dissent rather than an instrument to combat cybercrime.
HRSS cited Bangladesh’s experience with the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006, the Digital Security Act, 2018, and the Cyber Security Act, 2023.
It said vaguely worded provisions in those laws had faced allegations of being used against journalists, writers, students, political activists, rights defenders and ordinary citizens.
The reintroduction of previously controversial provisions in the new draft, it said, raises concerns that the reform process could be reversed.
Concerns over rumours and misinformation
HRSS has raised particular concerns over proposed provisions dealing with rumours and misinformation.
Under the draft, such offences could carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of Tk40 lakh, or both.
The rights group said the proposed definitions-describing a rumour as “unsubstantiated or unverified information” and misinformation as “false, distorted or misleading information”-do not establish sufficiently clear thresholds for criminal liability.
“Unverified information and false information are not the same thing,” HRSS said.
It argued that information obtained through investigative journalism, human rights monitoring, eyewitness accounts or during emergencies may not always be immediately verifiable.
Criminalising the publication of such information, it warned, could have a chilling effect on journalism and rights monitoring.
The group also objected to provisions that could allow cases or arrests based on broad concepts such as the country’s integrity, security, defence, public order, the image of the state and the reputation of individuals or institutions.
Defamation provision under scrutiny
HRSS also expressed concern over plans to place defamation, humiliation and bullying under Section 25 alongside offences such as sexual harassment, blackmail, sextortion, revenge pornography and digital child abuse.
The proposed amendment would raise the maximum punishment under the section to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of Tk20 lakh.
HRSS said combining defamation and forms of political expression with provisions intended to protect women and children from serious forms of online abuse could create scope for misuse.
It warned that political criticism, editorial cartoons, satire, protest slogans, opinions, public debate and criticism of the government could potentially lead to criminal proceedings if they were interpreted as defamatory or humiliating.
Questions over Cyber Security Council
The proposed structure of the National Cyber Security Council also came under scrutiny.
The council would be headed by the Prime Minister and include ministers and government officials. Although private-sector experts would also be included, they would be nominated by the government.
HRSS said this arrangement raises questions about the council’s independence, impartiality and potential conflicts of interest.
The organisation called for experts in cyber rights, information technology, journalism, human rights and law to be selected through a transparent process.
HRSS also criticised provisions granting immunity to officials without establishing adequate compensation or remedies for people subjected to unlawful arrest, wrongful content blocking or harassment.
HRSS called for the proposed provisions on rumours and misinformation to be reconsidered or withdrawn and urged the authorities to replace terms such as “unverified”, “derogatory to the state”, “humiliation” and “creating apprehension” with narrowly defined language.
It also demanded explicit protection for journalism, satire, cartoons, parody, political criticism and other forms of public-interest expression.
