‘Law cannot establish decency’

Lawmakers, lawyers, journalists, rights activists and former victims of Bangladesh’s Digital Security Act have warned that proposed amendments to the Cyber Protection Act 2026 could revive some of the most contentious features of the country’s previous cyber laws and restrict freedom of expression.

The concerns were raised on Monday at a roundtable organised by civic platform Voice for Reform at BDBL Bhaban in Dhaka, where speakers questioned both the scope of the proposed provisions and the government’s stated reasons for introducing them.

The discussion, titled “Freedom of Expression Under Threat Again: How Much Does the Amended Cyber Law Mirror the DSA?”, was moderated by Voice for Reform co-coordinator Fahim Mashroor and attended by lawmakers, lawyers, human rights activists, journalists, technology experts and people previously prosecuted under the Digital Security Act, or DSA.

Opening the discussion, Mashroor said the interim government that took office after the July mass uprising repealed the DSA and its successor, the Cyber Security Act, following widespread demands for reform, and promulgated the Cyber Protection Ordinance 2025.

After the elected government took office, parliament passed the ordinance unchanged as the Cyber Protection Act 2026 in April. The government has since moved to introduce new provisions, prompting renewed concern among civil society groups and the media over their implications for free speech, he said.

Human rights activist Dr Nabila Idris, a former member of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, said in the keynote presentation that the government had offered two principal justifications for the amendments: protecting women and children, and preventing freedom of expression from crossing the boundaries of “decency”.

Neither justification, she argued, matched the provisions being proposed.

“Cases are not filed on the basis of objectives; they are filed on the basis of legal provisions,” Idris said.

Sexual harassment, sextortion, revenge pornography and child abuse are already criminalised under existing law, she said, while the draft does not add new sexual offences. Instead, it introduces broadly framed offences involving defamation, disparagement, rumours and disinformation.

Idris also challenged the government’s argument on decency.

“The question is not about decency, but about who gets to punish,” she said. “Freedom of expression is a citizen’s right against the state, while decency is our responsibility towards one another.”

“When the police arrive because someone has been rude, it is no longer a family matter; it becomes a police matter. The state is not a guardian, nor are citizens children.”

She added: “If you try to enforce decency through law, you do not get decency back; you get BAKSAL back.”

Idris said about 21 people had already been arrested over online posts even before the proposed amendments were enacted. Those arrested included villagers, homemakers, students and two teenagers aged 16 and 17.

In almost all the cases, she said, political activists had acted before the police, while authorities subsequently invoked laws including the Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 54 and the Special Powers Act.

“People are not being arrested after looking at the law; the law is being written after looking at the arrests,” she said.

NCP lawmaker Advocate Abdullah Al Amin said restrictive laws were returning under different names.

Changing the name of RAB had not changed the force’s character, he said, adding that questions over transparency would remain if law enforcement agencies were themselves tasked with investigating enforced disappearances and other human rights violations involving security forces.

The shrinking space for speech was another cause for concern, he said.

Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami lawmaker Mardia Mumtaz said protecting citizens should be the central purpose of any cyber legislation.

Policymakers first needed to determine where legal intervention was necessary and where it was not, she said.

Dr Taznuva Jabeen said the proposed penalties for rumours and defamation risked narrowing the space for citizens to express themselves.

She questioned what she described as a disparity in the proposed punishments: while religious hatred or violence carries a two-year sentence, rumours and disinformation could be punished with up to 10 years in prison.

Supreme Court lawyer Manzur Al Matin focused on proposed changes to Section 25, which he said had previously dealt primarily with sexual harassment, blackmail and the publication of obscene material.

The amendment adds two terms — “defamation” and “disparagement”.

Under the proposed definition, Matin said, “disparagement” could cover anything deemed to damage a person’s dignity, reputation or social standing, including speech, conduct, publications and even an “indication” or gesture.

Reading the provision, he said, gave the impression that the government had assumed responsibility for protecting citizens’ social standing.

Matin also questioned why such provisions were necessary when the prime minister had publicly said he welcomed cartoons, asking whether people around him had nevertheless been waiting for a legal instrument to act against criticism.

He criticised the proposed removal of the National Human Rights Commission chairman from the National Cyber Protection Council.

“They do not even want to hear the words ‘human rights’,” he said.

Matin said one of the central principles of the July Charter was limited government — preventing the state from infringing citizens’ rights simply because it had the power to do so.

The proposed amendments, he argued, moved in the opposite direction.

Since the draft had not yet been finalised, he urged the government to consult human rights organisations and legal experts before proceeding.

“You say that if you lose after five years, you will relinquish power,” Matin said. “Then do not make any law whose consequences you yourselves may later have to suffer.”

Syed Hasib Uddin Hossain of Voice for Reform said the amendments appeared aimed at expanding state power rather than protecting citizens.

Didar Bhuiyan of Rashtra Sanskar Andolan identified the proposed indemnity provisions as his principal concern.

Increasing penalties alone would not control crime, he said, arguing that consistent and proper enforcement of existing laws was more important.

The Daily Star investigative journalist Jaima Islam said one of the most serious risks was giving magistrates broad discretion to decide what constituted defamation, disparagement, rumours or disinformation.

Such discretion could create grounds for the arrest of ordinary citizens and journalists, she said.

The impact could be particularly severe for smaller news organisations outside Dhaka, which have fewer institutional protections than large national media groups.

Journalists covering local corruption could consequently become reluctant to publish information that might expose them to arrest or prosecution, Islam said.

The roundtable was also attended by Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Tajrian Akram Hussain, former diplomat Sakib Ali, Daily Waadaa Managing Editor Faisal Mahmud, JDP convener Naim Ahmad and Sopran Research Director Zarif Rahman.

--