Bangladesh cyber law amendment could deepen threats to free speech: International legal group

The proposed amendment to Bangladesh’s cyber law contains sweeping restrictions on online speech that could suppress journalism, public debate and criticism of the government, while giving authorities broad powers to block content and arrest people without warrants, according to a new legal analysis.

The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), a Washington-based organisation, said several provisions of the proposed Cyber Protection (Amendment) Act, 2026 are inconsistent with Bangladesh’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The analysis, dated September 18, focuses on what ICNL describes as the most problematic new provisions and amendments, while noting that several concerns previously raised over the existing Cyber Protection Act remain unresolved.

The government published the draft on September 13 and set September 23 as the deadline for comments and recommendations, effectively giving the public 10 days to respond.

ICNL said the process itself falls short of international standards for meaningful public participation.

It said the government did not seek public input before preparing the draft and that it remains unclear how the proposed legislation was drafted or what considerations shaped its provisions.

“Not only is 10 days insufficient for meaningful and inclusive engagement with the public, only engaging through written submissions could exclude many stakeholder groups, such as small media outlets and grassroots organizations,” the analysis said.

ICNL recommended extending the consultation period and creating additional opportunities for public participation, including in-person town halls across the country.

Blocking powers could stifle independent media

One of ICNL’s principal concerns centres on Article 8, which retains the National Cyber Protection Agency director general’s power over blocking or removing websites and online information while expanding the range of authorities that can initiate such action.

Under the proposed amendment, law enforcement agencies, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and other government-authorised agencies or forces could seek the blocking, removal or relocation of websites and online information through the agency's director general and, where applicable, the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission.

ICNL said such action could be taken without prior approval or oversight from a court or another independent body.

The draft allows action against online information, “misinformation” or “rumor” considered to undermine or risk undermining national integrity, security, defence or public order; incite or risk inciting religious or communal hatred or ethnic violence; provide instructions for disorder or criminal activity; defame an individual or institution; or be derogatory to the state.

ICNL described those grounds as vague and undefined, arguing that they give authorities extensive discretion over what people can say or access online.

The organisation said expressions such as information that “poses a risk of undermining the integrity of the country,” “poses a risk of communal hatred” or is “derogatory to the State” are too broad to satisfy the freedom-of-expression requirements under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

It warned that Article 8 could stifle independent media, particularly reporting critical of government policies, chill public debate and weaken public accountability.

The absence of independent judicial review before content is removed also creates scope for arbitrary enforcement, including the possibility of content being targeted for political or personal reasons, ICNL said.

It recommended requiring approval from an independent judicial body before any website or online content can be blocked, removed or relocated and narrowly defining all categories of prohibited content.

ICNL raised separate concerns over Article 25, which would criminalise publishing speech, including audio and images, deemed “defamatory or humiliating or bullying.”

The draft's definition of defamation includes content deemed “false, distorted, misleading, defamatory or harmful” that has been recorded, edited or modified electronically or prepared or modified using artificial intelligence.

ICNL argued that the definition is so broad that protected forms of expression, including art and satire, could fall within its scope. It also questioned the use of criminal penalties for defamation, saying civil remedies would generally constitute a less restrictive response.

The definitions of “humiliating” and “bullying” also drew criticism.

Under the draft, humiliation can include conduct or expression that causes another person to appear “humiliated, contemptible, inferior or disrespectful” or damages their social status or reputation.

ICNL said the definition is subjective, does not require an intention to humiliate and makes no allowance for whether the information is true.

The analysis offered the example of a journalist publishing a video of someone accepting a bribe, arguing that such reporting could potentially fall within the provision because it could humiliate the person shown.

ICNL similarly warned that “bullying” could be interpreted broadly enough to encompass public criticism of someone's political positions or policies, creating a potential mechanism for authorities or political incumbents to act against critics.

‘Rumor’ provision could cover breaking news

The analysis reserved some of its strongest criticism for Article 26(A), which would criminalise disseminating “rumors” and “misinformation” in cyberspace.

Under the draft, “rumor” is defined as unconfirmed or unverified information, news or claims that create, or are likely to create, confusion, panic, agitation or social instability.

ICNL said that definition could “essentially” encompass all forms of breaking news because information emerging during a developing event may initially be unconfirmed or unverified.

It also criticised the definition of “misinformation,” which covers false, distorted or misleading information intentionally created or disseminated to mislead, deceive or cause harm to an individual, the public, an institution or the state.

The organisation said the provision does not clearly establish when information should be considered false or when it causes harm, leaving authorities with broad discretion to determine whether a person has committed an offence.

To illustrate the risk, ICNL gave a hypothetical example in which an economist forecasts Bangladesh’s GDP growth at 5% while the government forecasts 7%. Authorities could potentially claim the economist intentionally disseminated false information harmful to the state or a government institution, it argued.

The provisions could consequently have a “silencing effect on journalists, media, academics, civil society and the broader public,” ICNL said, recommending that Articles 25(1) and 26(A) be removed altogether.
The legal analysis also flagged the classification of offences under Article 25 as cognizable, meaning police could arrest someone without a judicially authorised arrest warrant for allegedly publishing defamatory, humiliating or bullying content.

That would leave an individual law enforcement officer able to make an arrest based on the officer's belief that an online post falls within those categories, ICNL said.

Combined with what it considers vague definitions under Article 25, the organisation said the provision creates “an enormous opportunity for arbitrary enforcement.”

It recommended that if Article 25 remains in the legislation, offences under it should be made non-cognizable and arrests over speech should require warrants authorised by an independent judicial body.
The analysis also warned of potentially far-reaching consequences for media companies, civil society groups and other organisations under Article 29.

If a cybercrime is committed by a company or organisation, the draft could hold owners, chief executives, directors, managers, employees and representatives directly concerned with the offence responsible unless they prove that it occurred without their knowledge or that they exercised due diligence to prevent it.

ICNL said the provision places the burden on representatives to demonstrate their lack of knowledge and could expose directors and employees of civil society organisations to prosecution over the conduct of an individual acting for the organisation.

Article 29(3) goes further by empowering courts to suspend or cancel an organisation’s registration, licence or operations following conviction.

ICNL said closing an organisation would often constitute a disproportionate penalty, particularly where the underlying offence involves online speech.

“Every media organization, civil society organization and private entity is now in danger of being shut down if one of its employees makes or publishes a statement that violates any of the overly broad and vague restrictions of content,” the analysis said.

Depending on how the provision is interpreted, ICNL warned, organisations could potentially face liability even when an employee made the disputed statement outside their official duties.

The organisation said involuntary dissolution should be a last-resort measure reserved for the most serious abuses and concluded that shutting down a business, organisation or other legal entity would not be proportionate to many of the offences contained in the proposed law.

--