Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) has urged the government to overhaul proposed amendments to the Cyber Protection Act, warning that broadly defined offences could restrict legitimate expression.
The group raised particular concerns over provisions covering defamation, “humiliation,” bullying, rumours and disinformation, saying they could criminalise journalism, political speech and public-interest criticism.
BLAST said it supported stronger protections for women, children and others facing serious online violence. But such protections should not come at the expense of lawful criticism, satire, journalism or political debate.
The group warned that the proposals risked repeating problems associated with the ICT Act 2006, Digital Security Act 2018 and Cyber Protection Act 2023, which faced sustained criticism over their use against journalists, activists, government critics and ordinary citizens.
The rights organisation called for “defamation” and “humiliation” to be removed from proposed Section 25, noting that defamation is already a criminal offence under Section 499 of the Penal Code.
BLAST said creating a separate online offence with a broader definition could increase the risk of criminalising criticism, opinion, satire, journalism and discussion of matters of public interest.
It raised particular concern over the proposed offence of “humiliation,” saying statements deemed to damage a person’s dignity, honour, reputation or social standing could fall within its scope without a clear distinction between criminal conduct and legitimate criticism, particularly when public figures and politicians are involved.
BLAST cited international human rights standards against imprisonment for defamation, as well as recommendations from the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN human rights office’s fact-finding report and Bangladesh’s Media Reform Commission.
BLAST acknowledged the serious harm caused by online violence, threats and harassment, particularly against women and children, but said the proposed definition of “bullying” under Section 25 was too broad for a criminal offence.
As drafted, political campaigning, satire, consumer complaints, investigative journalism, dissent and other legitimate expression could potentially fall within the provision simply because they cause mental distress, fear, isolation or social discomfort, it said.
If bullying remains a criminal offence, BLAST said it should be narrowly restricted to intentional and repeated or sustained digital conduct involving serious threats, intimidation or harm-based harassment, assessed objectively according to its nature and context.
Criticism, satire, journalism, political speech, rights advocacy and other lawful expression should be explicitly excluded, it added.
BLAST called for proposed Section 26A to be scrapped altogether, taking particular issue with a provision that would criminalise “rumours” arising from unsupported or unverified information.
“Unverified information does not necessarily mean false information,” the organisation said, arguing that during emergencies, natural disasters, human rights crises and rapidly developing events, information may not always be immediately and independently verifiable.
Criminalising such information could deter journalists, researchers and citizens from reporting genuine matters of public interest, it warned.
BLAST also described proposed concepts of “false,” “distorted” and “misleading” information as unclear. The proposed penalty of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to 4 million taka makes the problem more serious, it said.
Instead, the organisation called for timely and accurate public information, transparent government communication, independent fact-checking, media literacy, responsible journalism and effective mechanisms for correcting false information.
BLAST also opposed proposed changes to Section 8 that would significantly expand state powers to remove, relocate or block online content.
The amendments could give authorities additional unilateral powers to restrict information on broad grounds including “disinformation” and rumours, possible threats to national security or public order, defamation, or material considered insulting to the state, it said.
Giving the executive such broad authority to determine what citizens can see or say online creates a serious risk of abuse, BLAST warned.
It also objected to proposals to remove existing transparency requirements concerning blocked material and alter the timeframe for obtaining tribunal approval, saying the changes could reduce government accountability and weaken judicial safeguards.
BLAST urged the government to retain and strengthen transparency and judicial oversight rather than remove them.
The organisation said Bangladesh’s experience with previous cyber laws offered a warning against broadly and vaguely drafted speech offences, which it said had created opportunities for abuse and produced a chilling effect on journalists, human rights defenders, critics and ordinary citizens.
BLAST called on the government to remove defamation and humiliation from Section 25, narrowly define bullying around serious and objectively identifiable harm, abolish Section 26A, review proposed penalties to ensure they are necessary and proportionate, restore and strengthen judicial oversight and transparency over content blocking, and prevent government agencies from exercising unchecked powers to remove online material.
The final law, it said, should address genuine cyber threats while protecting freedom of expression, journalism, public-interest criticism and other fundamental rights.
--