This section borrows language directly from Article 19 of the constitution, effectively giving the PTA, an executive authority operating under the federal government, the power to interpret the constitution. Interpretation of constitutional provisions has traditionally been done only through the higher judiciary. Article 19, as discussed in the previous sections, clearly says that the restrictions have to be defined by law; however, through this provision, the interpretation of already subjective limitations like integrity of Islam, decency and morality, etc. has been transferred to a body that has traditionally been tasked only with the licensing of the telecommunication sector and reports to the government. Since the enactment of PECA, the PTA has established a research cell of 25 persons49 who scour the internet for objectionable material to be removed or blocked. The law instructs the PTA to “prescribe rules providing for, among other matters, safeguards, transparent process and effective oversight mechanism for exercise of powers under subsection” and until that time, to “exercise its powers under this Act or any other law for the time being in force in accordance with the directions issued by the Federal Government.” For the sake of transparency and accountability, the PTA was instructed to file a report about the implementation of this section in the parliament. However, despite a formal request from a legislator, Senator Farhatullah Babar,50 the PTA has yet to submit this report. The law also defines a redressal mechanism in cases where internet users might feel aggrieved by the censorship orders. The aggrieved person/s must “file an application with the Authority for review of the order within thirty days from the date of passing of the order” and “an appeal against the decision of the Authority in review shall lie before the High Court within thirty days of the order of the Authority.” However, there is a challenge with this redressal mechanism as well: the PTA has historically been secretive of the list of websites/pages/users it chooses to block. The local organisation Media Matters for Democracy (MMfD) has filed multiple requests under the Right to Information Act requesting a complete list of banned websites along with the reasons for blockage, and received no response from the Authority. This situation is likely 49 Yousufzai, A. (2017, 9 May). PTA Monitored and Blocked 1660 Blasphemous Links/Sites. Propakistani. https://propakistani.pk/2017/05/09/ pta-monitored-blocked-1660-blasphemous-linkssites 50 Ahmad, Z. (2017, 20 July). Senators call for cyber crimes legislation under Article 19. Business Recorder. fp.brecorder. com/2017/07/20170720199842 to continue. Thus, the redressal mechanism would technically enable only the creators of the content to initiate proceedings, because without an updated list of blocked material, general consumers of information, i.e. internet users, might not even be aware that it has been blocked. Media reports also demonstrate that in addition to the PTA, other state departments have also been activated to keep an eye out on the internet. In July 2017, the Punjab Safe Cities Authority (PSCA) reported “684 objectionable pages and IDs of both Facebook and Twitter during its strike against anti-state, anti-social, blasphemous and sectarian warmongering elements on social media.”51 In June 2017, the counter-terrorism department in Sindh had also identified and sought action against “25 such websites, which were involved in spreading religious and ethnic extremism and terrorism.”52 Finally, an old colonial law that can potentially be used to restrict speech online is the Telegraph Act 1885. This Act includes a section that can be used to criminalise “fabricated or obscene messages” sent online. Section 29 of the Telegraph Act states: If any person transmits or causes to be transmitted by telegraph a message which he knows or has reason to believe to be false or fabricated, or a message which is indecent or obscene, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Potential for further violations There are no draft laws currently available that have the potential for a direct impact on the practice of freedom of expression online. However, the potential for an increase in the abuse of existing laws is demonstrated through the political statements that have been given by cabinet members. The framing of social media tools like Twitter as a “threat to democracy” and the FIA’s crackdown against people tweeting against the Army without obtaining proper warrants or following the prescribed legal procedure appear to be a grim indication of things to come. Legislators from opposition parties have also publicly expressed doubts about the intentions underlying the cybercrime legislation. Senator Farhatullah Babar from the opposition Pakistan 51 The News. (2017, 7 July). 684 social media IDs objectionable. The News. https://www.thenews.com.pk/ print/214986-684-social-media-IDs-objectionable 52 Ali, I. (2017, 22 June). CTD seeks ban on 25 websites spreading “terrorism, extremism”. Dawn.com. https://www.dawn.com/ news/1341033 PAKISTAN / 115