Faisal Waqas
The recent Senate Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting proceedings have raised an important question: where should the line be drawn between cybercrime enforcement and the regulation of journalism? The committee’s direction to the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) not to use PECA against newspapers, television websites or their digital platforms appears to offer an important clarification at a time when the boundaries between traditional media and digital media are increasingly blurred.
The issue is not simply about one columnist or one notice. It is about the larger principle of who should regulate published journalism.
According to the NCCIA briefing, a notice issued to a newspaper columnist was intended to obtain his position following complaints by the PAS Officers Association. Officials clarified that no FIR had been registered under PECA. The committee subsequently directed that the complaint and the complainant be referred to the Press Council of Pakistan, which it considered the appropriate forum for examining the published column.
This distinction matters.
If a newspaper publishes an article, column or report, there are already established institutions responsible for dealing with questions of journalistic conduct and regulation. Bringing cybercrime legislation into every dispute involving online journalism could create uncertainty for journalists, editors and media organisations.
At the same time, the digital age has created a genuine complication. A journalist’s Facebook page, YouTube channel or other social-media account can operate independently of a newspaper or television organisation. The fact that something appears online does not automatically make it journalism, nor does it automatically make it cybercrime.
The Senate committee’s intervention therefore deserves attention not as a confrontation between the media and the state, but as an attempt to establish clearer boundaries.
The real question is not whether journalism should be above the law, but which law should apply.
Respect for a person’s honour and dignity is essential. Equally important is ensuring that complaints against journalism are handled by the appropriate forum, through a transparent process and with the right of reply.
The latest direction from the Senate committee may therefore represent more than a procedural instruction. It could be the beginning of a clearer regulatory approach in which journalism is dealt with through journalism’s established regulatory mechanisms, while genuine cybercrime remains within the NCCIA’s mandate.
That distinction is necessary if Pakistan’s digital regulatory framework is to protect both individual dignity and the freedom to report, question and criticise.
