sentence was handed over by the Anti Terrorism Court and Section 11W was one of the sections used to bring about the charge. In this particular case, Section 11W was evoked as the speech could “whip up sectarian hatred”.23 Section 11W has also been used in a case of blackmail over Facebook.24 Within Pakistan’s security context, Section 11W is seen as a key instrument to curb speech that can threaten national security in any manner. A demonstrative case regarding application of 11W is High Court Bar Association vs Government of Balochistan.25 The case was initiated through the Registrar of Balochistan High Court who drew notice to the reporting of a terrorist incident in which 26 persons were brutally murdered and a banned organisation Lashkar e Jhangvi (LeJ) claimed responsibility. The notice included reports mentioning LeJ from 10 newspapers. The judgment notes the fact that the court had received statements from media representatives regarding the threats they receive unless they air the claims of organisations like LeJ. However, the judgment holds that despite the threats and the fear of life, the compliance with 11W was mandatory. Upon reception of threats the media was directed to “report to the police” but if the electronic media and press “propagate the view of banned organizations they are not acting as good and responsible journalists but as mouthpieces for malicious and vile propaganda.” In this context the government was instructed to initiate action under Section 11W against any publications/broadcasts that included claims from banned/terrorist organisations. It is important to note that journalists in Balochistan are directly under threat from banned organisations and other actors. In the last 17 years more than 22 journalists have been killed in the region26 and in 2012, the year before the judgment was issued, the wave of violence against journalists had extended to targeting their family members.27 This case does not relate to online expression and has been cited only to demonstrate the approach 23 Gabol, I. (2017, 10 June). First death sentence handed to man for blasphemy on social media. Dawn.com. https://www.dawn.com/ news/1338684 24 Hussnain, F. (2017, 2 August). Facebook blackmailer sentenced to 14 months in prison. The Nation. nation.com.pk/lahore/02-Aug-2017/ facebook-blackmailer-sentenced-to-14-months-in-prison 25 PLD 2013 Balochistan 75. 26 Baig, A. (2015, 3 June). Safe Nowhere – Plight of Journalists in Pakistan – Part 3: Case List of Journalists Killed in the Line of Duty. Media Matters for Pakistan. mediamatterspakistan.org/844 27 The Express Tribune. (2012, 26 October). Second son of Khuzdar Press Club president passes away. The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/457243/ second-son-of-president-khuzdar-press-club-passes-away that is taken by the court when the law’s application is concerned. In the new cybercrime legislation, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, section 12 criminalises preparation or dissemination of “information, through any information system or device that invites or motivates to fund, or recruits people for terrorism or plans for terrorism.” Another Section in PECA criminalises “glorification of an offence”: Section 9. – Glorification of an offence. (1) Whoever prepares or disseminates information, through any information system or device, with the intent to glorify an offence relating to terrorism, or any person convicted of a crime relating to terrorism, or activities of proscribed organizations or individuals or groups shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine which may extend to ten million rupees or with both. So far there are no judgments in any cases that have been registered on the basis of Section 9 or 12 of the law. PECA also empowers security and intelligence agencies to initiate action, including real-time surveillance for “national security” reasons.28 Contempt of court The Contempt of Court Act, 2012, defines the offence of contempt of court: Whoever disobeys or disregards any order, direction or process of a court, which he is legally bound to obey or commits a willful breach of a valid undertaking given to a court or does anything which is intended to or tends to bring the authority of a court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute, or to interfere with or obstruct or interrupt the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceedings, or to lower the authority of a court or scandalize a judge in relation to his office, or to disturb the order or decorum of a court, is said to commit “contempt of court”. There is no documented case of the Act itself being used to initiate legal action against expression online. However, one prominent case of a political worker being arrested for “tweeting against the judiciary” has been documented. A political worker from Pakistan, Tehreek Insaaf, was arrested by 28 Gishkhori, Z. (2016, 20 October). ISI to take action against cyber crimes breaching national security. Geo.tv. https://www.geo.tv/ latest/118292-Govt-accepts-ISIs-role-in-taking-action-againstcyber-crimes PAKISTAN / 109