Editors warn against misuse of cyber law

The proposed Cyber Security (Amendment) Act, 2026, must not become a tool to criminalise critical journalism or restrict the public’s right to information, the Editors’ Council has warned, proposing 12 safeguards to protect press freedom, public-interest reporting and freedom of expression.

The council urged the government to ensure that the draft law clearly distinguishes genuine cybercrime from journalistic work, while introducing safeguards against arbitrary arrests, searches, surveillance and the removal or blocking of digital content.

It submitted the recommendations on Sunday (18 October) to Chief Information Officer Syed Abdal Ahmad for onward submission to the Minister of Information and Broadcasting.

The council said the proposed legislation, which has yet to be finalised, should balance cybersecurity needs with the protection of independent journalism.

It called for clear legal provisions, transparency, judicial oversight and effective remedies for those affected by enforcement measures.

Journalism and public-interest reporting must be protected
The council said news reports, investigative journalism, analysis and opinions published in the course of professional duties or in the public interest should not be treated as cybercrime merely because of their content or critical tone.

Public-interest reporting, fair criticism, political commentary, satire, cartoons, parody, consumer complaints and unintentional professional errors should not attract criminal liability, it said. Offences involving freedom of expression should also remain bailable.

The proposed law should explicitly protect reporting on corruption, abuse of power, financial irregularities, environmental damage, public health, consumer rights, government expenditure and irregularities in public and private institutions.

Criticism of the government, state institutions, public officials, elected representatives and government policies, as well as political analysis, irony and satire, should not be classified as cybercrime, the council added.

It also opposed vague expressions such as “demeaning the state”, calling for precise definitions of terms relating to state security and relations with foreign countries.

Prior court approval for action against journalists
The council recommended that arrests, searches, seizures, access to digital devices or data, and surveillance directly related to journalists’ professional activities require prior judicial approval.

Where emergency action is unavoidable, subsequent court approval or review should be mandatory within 48 hours. The council also said such cases should remain bailable.

Clear definitions of online offences
Incorrect or incomplete information should not automatically constitute a criminal offence, the council said, urging the government to distinguish clearly between false information, disinformation and rumours.

Information should not be criminalised merely because it remains unverified or lacks supporting evidence, it added.

The legislation should also clearly define offences and concepts such as bullying, defamation, humiliation, conduct insulting to the state, relations with foreign states, sexual harassment and sextortion.

Transparency in content removal and blocking
Any order to remove or block news reports, social media posts, videos or other digital content should specify its legal basis, provide written reasons and explain why the action is necessary, the council said.

Except in emergencies, the affected person or organisation should be given an opportunity to respond. Every order should also be open to appeal and judicial review.

Emergency blocking measures should be subject to court approval or review within 48 hours.

The council called for public disclosure of information about content removed or blocked under the law.

Press Council should handle defamation complaints
The Editors’ Council argued that online defamation should not be treated as a new or more serious form of cybercrime.

Complaints concerning defamation, news publication, professional conduct, journalistic ethics and media responsibility should, where appropriate, be handled through the Bangladesh Press Council’s existing complaint and inquiry mechanisms rather than through direct criminal proceedings.

It also opposed the use of mobile courts or executive authorities to adjudicate disputes involving news publication, freedom of expression, defamation or journalistic content.

Arrests, fines, content removal and other punitive measures in such cases should remain subject to judicial oversight, it said.

No collective punishment of media outlets
The council said a media organisation should not face closure, cancellation of registration or disproportionate punishment because of an individual report or publication.

Instead, such complaints should be addressed through the Press Council. It called for the modernisation of the council’s jurisdiction and effectiveness to bring relevant digital news media within its remit.

Protecting journalistic sources was another key recommendation. The council described source confidentiality as a fundamental principle of journalism and argued that journalists should not be compelled to reveal their sources.

Independent oversight of cyber security powers
The council proposed transforming the National Cyber Security Council into a multi-stakeholder body with the authority to independently oversee agencies exercising powers of investigation, arrest, search, seizure, surveillance and content removal.

The proposed body should include experts in cybersecurity, law and human rights, as well as professionals with experience in media and editorial leadership.

The council also called for clear rules governing the body’s composition, members’ independence, limits on investigators’ powers and accountability for decisions.

Its decisions and policy recommendations involving the public interest should be made transparent.

In its concluding observations, the council said cybersecurity, cybercrime and journalism in the digital sphere were distinct areas, but the proposed legislation did not always establish sufficiently clear boundaries between them.

It urged the government to reconsider the draft to ensure that efforts to strengthen cybersecurity and combat genuine cybercrime did not undermine independent journalism, public-interest reporting or freedom of expression.

A secure digital Bangladesh and a free media were not conflicting goals, the council said, arguing that both could be strengthened through appropriate legislation, transparency, judicial oversight and accountability.