Proposed cyber law could curb free speech: HRSS

The Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) has urged the government to revise several provisions of the proposed cyber protection law, warning that they could undermine freedom of expression, media freedom, personal privacy and other fundamental rights.

While welcoming the initiative to strengthen digital security and combat cybercrime, the rights organisation raised concerns over Sections 8(2), 8(3), 8(4), 25A, 25B, 26A, 29, 46 and 46A, as well as provisions governing investigations, searches, seizures and arrests.

In a statement, HRSS said cybersecurity was a state responsibility but must not come at the expense of constitutional rights and democratic space. It stressed that digital security and freedom of expression must be protected simultaneously.

The organisation questioned the executive powers under Sections 8(2), 8(3) and 8(4) to block or remove online content without adequate judicial oversight, warning that such authority could restrict free expression and access to information.

It also opposed the criminalisation of online defamation under Section 25A, saying the provision could be used to harass journalists, investigative reporters, whistleblowers and government critics through lawsuits. It recommended civil remedies instead of criminal prosecution, while ensuring protection for publications made in the public interest.

On Section 25B, HRSS warned that vague definitions of “humiliation” and “bullying” could be used to target political satire, cartoons, social commentary and peaceful dissent.

It also raised concerns over Section 26A, which proposes imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of Tk 10 lakh for spreading rumours or misinformation. The organisation argued that publishing incorrect information should not automatically be treated as a criminal offence without establishing the publisher's intent, the actual harm caused and the essential elements of the alleged offence.

HRSS further questioned Section 29, which allows licences to be revoked or organisational operations terminated for certain offences. It warned that the provision could threaten the independence of media outlets and civil society organisations. Liability, it said, should rest with those directly responsible, while any institutional action must be proportionate.

Regarding Sections 46 and 46A, the organisation called for a review of provisions that make certain expression-related offences cognisable and non-bailable. It demanded equal legal safeguards for ordinary citizens, online journalists, researchers and human rights defenders, rather than limiting such protections to registered media outlets.

It also called for judicial oversight and due-process guarantees in investigations, searches, digital-device seizures and arrests under Sections 33, 34 and 35.

Among its recommendations, HRSS urged the government to bring the proposed law in line with Article 39 of the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It called for independent judicial authorisation before online content is blocked, written explanations for such decisions, expedited appeals and safeguards against arbitrary arrests and retaliatory lawsuits.