Constitutional restrictions on right to freedom of expression and related laws There are other laws that restrict expression and define criminalised forms of expression, like the Defamation Act 2004, that do not clearly fall within the prescribed restrictions structure. There has been debate over the subjective nature of some of the prescribed limitations. In particular the limitation on speech that is against “decency” and “morality” remains highly subjective and open to interpretation, as these terms have not been defined in any of the legal mechanisms. In Benazir Bhutto vs Federation of Pakistan (1988), Chief Justice Muhammad Haleem states: building a firewall to block Facebook completely in case of failure to rid it of all blasphemous content: this particular area of restriction has the most well-developed body of case law focused on the online space. The offence is codified in the following three sections from the Pakistan Penal Code, 1890: 295 A – Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of Pakistan], by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [ten years], or with fine, or with both. The difficulty of determining what would offend against morality is enhanced by the fact that not only does the concept of immorality differ between man and man, but the collective notion of society also differs amazingly in different ages. All that can be said is that the antonym of the word “morality” according to the existing notion depends upon acts which are regarded as acts of immorality by the consensus of general opinion.11 295 C – Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. In Yaqub Beg vs State, Justice A. S. Faruqi states: Obscenity as understood in law consists of publishing or exhibiting such matter or object which has the tendency to corrupt the minds of those who are open to immoral influences by exciting in them sensuality and carnal desire.12 298 A – Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahlebait), of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or any of the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa e Raashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Thus, even the case law within which the concepts of morality, etc. have been deconstructed sets a subjective parameter for their definition. Here is a look at other restrictions and legal tools used for defining those restrictions, particularly in the online sphere. Blasphemy The offence of blasphemy is defined in different sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. From the banning of platforms like YouTube, to initiation of arrest warrants for Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, enforced disappearances of bloggers accused of blasphemy, vigilante murders for alleged blasphemous expression online, awarding a death sentence to an accused, or a court order recommending 11 Reported Caselaw Trends on the Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (2015). 12 Reported Caselaw Trends on the Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (2015). Different court orders strictly affirm the restriction; in Zaheeruddin vs State (1993), Justice Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry states that “anything, in any fundamental right, which violates the Injunctions of Islam thus must be repugnant.” In Masroor Ahsan vs Aredeshir Cowasjee (1998), Justice Munawar Ahmad Mirza states that “a citizen has to be mindful about paramount religious, cultural or social textures and basic features by avoiding […] provoking towards contravention of existing laws or prejudicing glory of Islam in the PAKISTAN / 107