In what appears to be a growing trend, the Pakistani government has once again invoked the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) to file FIRs against journalists and political commentators, including Adil Raja, Moeed Pirzada, Muhammad Umar, Nazir Butt, and Ahmad Noorani, accusing them of running a social media hate campaign that allegedly endangers national security. Ironically, all these journalists have been critical of government and institutions in the past.

The accusations stem from online content published amid recent Pakistan-India tensions. However, this legal move raises serious concerns about the selective and disproportionate use of the PECA law, particularly when it comes to dissenting voices and media professionals.

Criminalizing Journalism, Not Correcting It

In democratic societies, when a journalist or media outlet publishes a report that a government believes is inaccurate or misleading, the standard response is a rebuttal — an official clarification, a press conference, or a formal right-of-reply issued to the media. In cases of serious reputational damage, affected parties often pursue libel or defamation suits, a civil recourse that allows both sides to present their case in court.

What rarely happens and what should alarm anyone who believes in free expression is the criminal prosecution of journalists for expressing opinions or sharing reports that may be unflattering to those in power.

Instead of countering criticism with transparency or factual correction, the state is choosing to punish it — branding social media commentary as a threat to national security.

Is Free Speech Only for the Powerful?

A central contradiction lies at the heart of the government’s narrative: if a social media post by an individual citizen or journalist is so dangerous that it can provoke national panic, then why is the same legal strictness not applied to the unchecked behavior of celebrities, influencers, and politicians?

Social media in Pakistan is rife with vulgarity, moral degradation, and defamation campaigns, especially by influencers chasing engagement and politicians engaged in personal mudslinging. Government officials, including ministers, routinely use provocative and abusive language against opposition leaders. Many of these acts are far more visible and arguably more damaging to national unity and public morale than a journalist expressing skepticism toward an official narrative.

Yet, no FIRs are filed. No investigations are launched. No arrests are made.

If national security and social stability are truly paramount, then shouldn’t protecting the country’s youth from widespread online vulgarity, disinformation, and hate campaigns, regardless of who is behind them, be just as important?

Instead, the focus appears to be disproportionately aimed at silencing dissent through PECA FIRs against journalists. PECA, originally framed as a law to counter cybercrime, harassment, and online abuse, has increasingly become a tool for censorship, used to suppress journalists, activists, and citizens who challenge state narratives.

Journalism or Treason?

By continuously blurring the lines between dissent and treason, the state risks creating an environment where journalism becomes a high-risk profession. The invocation of “national security” to justify crackdowns on journalists has become a familiar script, one that undermines the public’s right to know and the media’s role as a watchdog.

If serious accusations are made, let the evidence be tested in an open court, not in sealed FIRs under vague charges. If a story is false, let it be countered publicly, with facts and transparency.

Resorting to intimidation and prosecution erodes public trust in institutions, a threat to national harmony and social stability far greater than any blog post or tweet could ever pose.

The use of PECA against journalists doesn’t just target individuals; it creates a chilling effect where self-censorship thrives, investigative journalism dies, and the only voices left are those echoing state-sanctioned narratives.

If Pakistan wishes to preserve its fragile global image, then it must rethink its policies towards public freedom. Otherwise, the real threat to national stability may not come from social media posts but from the erosion of free speech itself.