The changing digital landscape for media poses a direct threat to journalistic freedoms, with the states of South Asia tightening control over media output and practices. Even as the past decade brought in increasing control over the media by governments globally, the pandemic clearly exposed the unique censorship efforts by various South Asian governments. In an era of misinformation and journalistic censorship, the media – particularly digital media – is facing its biggest challenge yet, with egregious state control over news and other content.

In this digital economy, propagation of hate and misinformation online is a business model in and of itself. Digital capitalism thrives on the ‘attention’ and data analysis of its users and, with the increased platform virality, the growing threat of misinformation cannot be underestimated.

Journalists are bearing the brunt of some of the most egregious practices and, as a result, many self-censor in order to protect fragile livelihoods. Adding to the malaise, governments intent on preventing misinformation, have also implemented broad laws with vague provisions. These laws not only violate the fundamental rights of their citizens, but further misuse discretionary surveillance powers to unlawfully secure prosecution against journalists and media outlets attempting to fulfil their journalistic duties.

It is an all too evident reality that especially journalists belonging to marginalised identities, women and religious or gender minorities directly face hate and even violence from anonymous persons through technology. The ease with which any person or community can be abused online comes with attackers taking the benefit of anonymity in cyberspace, and the lack of legal protections afforded to journalists in many countries. The Asia-Pacific region holds a notorious record in terms of press freedoms, with its prisons particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, containing some of the world’s highest numbers of incarcerated journalists and bloggers. Media freedoms, including online digital media freedoms, directly correlate with the nature and profile of governments and are worst under totalitarian regimes.

Regulations and restrictions

Control exerted over the flow of information is also a result of internet exploitation by government administrations. Monitoring and controlling online journalistic behaviour are a priority for many governments and a surveillance infrastructure is tightly regulated, especially regarding digital news.

A case in point is India, which has taken steps to tightly regulate all “digital news publishers” and “OTT platforms” (referred to as ‘publishers’), that have a physical presence in the country, or conduct systematic business activity to make content available in India. Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [IT Rules] grant overreaching powers to India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting [IB Ministry], to regulate digital news media spaces.  However, the ‘Code of Ethics’ in Part III, of the Rules which sets out to regulate digital media content – is facing strong resistance from multiple media agencies and remains as pending cases in courts. These unfettered powers and misuse by the IB Ministry are illustrated with an incident involving the unjustified blackout of Malayalam TV Channel Media One in 2022 – allegedly for “security reasons”. The channel was later allowed to operate by an intervention by India’s Supreme Court.

In India, sedition as well as counter-terror laws such as the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act are used to stamp out free speech and the critical analysis of government policies, evidenced by the arrest of lawyers and journalists – even for social media posts.

In Sri Lanka, after January 2021, the Cabinet of Ministers proposed to amend the Press Council Law to include electronic and new media and approved a proposal to ‘structurally reform and reorganize’ the Press Council to cover electronic and new media. The Free Media Movement (FMM) has long been advocating for the abolition of the Press Council Law for its overregulation of media.

In November 2021, Pakistan introduced the Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act, 2021, with the aim of providing a defence mechanism for journalists who feel threatened. The country regularly sits in the top 10 of countries for journalists killed. The most contentious issue in this law is Section 6, which prohibits journalists and media professionals from “spreading false information”, and producing material that “advocates hatred”, or constitutes “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. Using this law, the Pakistan government has placed several excessive restrictions on journalistic freedoms with vague and discretionary powers, to criminally prosecute those who do not comply with the diktats of the ruling dispensation.

Additionally, several new amendments were made in 2022 to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) to further stifle dissent. The law penalises posting “fake news” with no substantive definition of the phrase and is being used to oppress the media and all forms of democratic online expression. A report in November 2021 by Freedom Network notes that over half the journalists targeted by the PECA, worked for digital media platforms.

In a judgement with far reaching implications, the Islamabad High Court on April 8, 2022, deemed as unconstitutional the PECA Ordinance, issued in February 2022. The ruling said, “The criminalisation of defamation, protection of individual reputations through arrest and imprisonment and the resultant chilling effect violates the letter of the Constitution and the invalidity thereof is beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In Bangladesh, the Digital Security Act, 2018, has faced socio-legal resistance and debates involving human rights advocates, students, civilians and the international community, with the critique centred on discretionary and overreaching censorship powers available to the state. In December 2021, Bangladesh’s Law Minister, Anisul Haq, admitted to the misuse of the law following the tragic custodial death of writer Mushtaq Ahmed in February 2021. Ahmed was kept incarcerated for ten months and repeatedly denied bail, before his tragic demise.

In Nepal, media rights organisations including the Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) and the Nepal Press Union (NPU), have criticised and called for the repeal of the Media Bill for several years now. The excessive penal provisions prescribed in the law for posting content on social media which may pose a threat to the “country’s sovereignty, security, unity or harmony” end up restricting freedom of expression among the media. This includes either a fine up to 1.5 million Nepali Rupees (approx. USD 12,500), or up to five years in prison.

In the Maldives, the implementation of the draconian Anti-Defamation and Freedom of Expression law since 2016, prescribes heavy fines for content or speech that disrupts “religious unity”, endangers “national security” or violates “social order”. Since 2018, there has been is a glimmer of hope with the institution of successful government investigation mechanisms like the Presidential Commission on Investigation of Murders and Enforced Disappearances, ratification of two core international human rights treaties (Optional Protocol to the ICESCR as well as the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances) as well as the repeal of the much criticised Anti-Defamation law, with the ruling dispensation post of 2018 breaking away from a repressive past of state censorship in the atoll.

Protests against an amendment to Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) in February 2022, which threatened the right to information, were corroborated when the ordinance was overturned by Islamabad’s High Court. Credit: PFUJ

Switched off

In this era, South Asia’s governments tactically use internet shutdowns across large areas to disrupt communications in sensitive and militarised zones on grounds of national security. For instance, in Bangladesh, the government blocked the website of Benar News, an online affiliate of Radio Free Asia, in April 2020. This transpired due to the media outlet reporting on news of a leaked UN memo, warning that as many as two million Bangladeshis could die from Covid-19 without appropriate government measures. In India between January 2021-April 2021, the country experienced 18 internet shutdowns, including two in the country’s capital, New Delhi, which were aimed at curbing the large spate of farmers protests taking place at the time. 

Virtual violence

To guarantee freedom of expression and access to information of all citizens, collective action is essential to end impunity for crimes against journalists, especially regarding violence mediated through the use of technology. The escalation of online violence, specifically based on gender is a great source of consternation on a global scale today. Evidence of the complicity of tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, in hosting violent content on their platforms, including the circulation of rape videos and revenge porn, has existed from as early as 2014.

Women journalists working in the public sphere, with large public followings and engagement on the online space, or those who have come out in the public sphere to recount their experiences, have been routinely targeted and victimised more severely in cyberspace.

In India, the Editors Guild of India condemned the continued online harassment and organised trolling of women journalists by anonymous entities. The Guild demanded “increased government action to dismantle the growing anonymous misogynistic and abusive trolls forming part of digital ecosystems targeting women journalists”. Journalists – especially women who are openly critical of the government – face fierce online trolling and threats from anonymous persons.

As per its August 2021 gender disparity study in the Maldives, the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) found women journalists experience gender-specific threats as well as severe forms of online violence including physical threats, intimidation and harassment as well as hacking and phishing.

Studies including the BBC Panorama Study, Equality Labs, and Amnesty’s Toxic Twitter report have also shown that women in the public space like journalists, face a higher volume of hate and violence on social media platforms, including threats of sexual assault, physical violence, abusive language, harassing private messages, threats to damage their professional or personal reputations, digital security attacks, misrepresentation via manipulated images and financial threats.

It is important to note the ethical responsibilities of social media platforms as prominent spaces to access journalistic outputs. Censorship practices by these platforms, in complicity with South Asian states, displaces women from spaces of knowledge production and sharing, thereby restricting their free use of online platforms. Women are excluded from rightful and legal access to free speech due to disproportionate “moderation” and regulation of content created by women.

Persons with multiple intersectionalities (LBTQI+ community, Dalit, ethnic minority, indigenous) are often targeted online through discrimination and hate speech. As a result, they tend to self-censor and withdraw from debates and online discussions.

Meena Kotwal, a prominent Indian journalist, was attacked with caste-based slurs and violent death threats on social media. This was not an isolated incident, as such intersectional violence is rampant on social media in the region. A December 2021 study by the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, which mapped online caste-based violence on social media, identified a wide prevalence of casteist abuse intersecting with gender abuse – rape threats and gendered hate speech towards women.

Platforms often play a large role in enabling such violence through censorship cultures and a lack of accountability, which is further worsened by the lack of a nuanced understanding in tackling online violence. In India, the Supreme Court in Ajit Mohan v. Legislative Assembly, NCT & Ors (2020) recognised the power and potential of multinational digital corporations and how their influence extends over populations. In Bangladesh, the 2021 communal riots that erupted at Comila were a consequence of social media posts on Facebook and YouTube videos perpetrating hate speech. During this incident, the draconian Digital Security Act (DSA) was also used to arrest two journalists for allegedly promoting communal unrest in different parts of the country. Riots in early 2018 as well as the Easter Sunday 2019 bombings in Sri Lanka, are examples of how the government has tightly regulated and used internet shutdowns as a measure to disrupt any communal or other forms of violence. Following the impact of these incidents, a study conducted in 2020, noted how even though it initially limited journalistic independence of reporting and story verifications, journalists were finding new ways to use social media and continue the flow of information through the increased usage of VPNs.

In July 2021, the Sri Lankan government also backtracked on its promise to investigate reports made on social media regarding sexual abuse in Sri Lankan newsrooms stating that the government would not recognise complaints made on social media. Across South Asia, there is a visible threat to journalists from social media toxicity and hate in the digital landscape and one which requires more than tokenistic safety features.

Closures and labour disruptions

Marking the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, the media and news sector faced several labour repercussions which continue even now. Even though Covid-19 itself played a role in disrupting many businesses, government control over the media was a key and constant factor leading to the closure of media houses, loss of journalist jobs and pay cuts.

In Pakistan, as noted by the IFJ Pakistan country report in 2021, many institutions underwent extreme financial turmoil with the closure of media houses, layoffs and delays in payments of salaries, which also resulted in extreme economic difficulties for journalists, in some cases leading to suicides. In India, the spill-over effect of the government’s action to restrict foreign direct investment in digital media to 26 per cent, has been visible. The FDI policy which caps investments has played a major role in restricting the businesses of digital news media. A result of the 2020 policy can be seen with the closure of several news and content websites such as HuffPost India and Verizon media which owns Yahoo News, Yahoo Finance and Yahoo Cricket.

Collective action

Journalists have put up stiff resistance to the onslaught on media rights across all South Asia. The struggle for a level playing field for the media can be seen from the rising debates and resistance in multiple on ground and online movements. Media driven mobilisations and uprisings are the core of a democracy and have a large influence in patterns of public participation, organisational configurations and resistance movements.

In India, 11 digital media organisations came together in October 2020 to launch the DIGIPUB News India Foundation. Together, they challenged the restrictive Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in court, as an infringement of freedom of expression. However, despite their efforts, including a letter to the Union Ministers, there has been no notable outcome.

Internationally, UN Special Rapporteurs, including Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, have written to the Government of India expressing concern over the new IT Rules, noting that the problematic provisions relating to traceability of first originator, intermediary liability and executive oversight of digital media content violate the rights to privacy and freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In December 2021, the Madras High Court restrained the central government from taking any coercive action under the 2021 Rules, against digital media platforms that are members of the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation, including Sun TV Network. The pushback on the new IT rules has been evident with over 23 petitions filed across High Courts in India, several by news media outlets.

In Pakistan, the Women Journalists Association in March 2021, demanded a special desk to address cyber violence against women. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) of Pakistan was directed by a local court in 2022 to ensure filing of investigation reports in court regarding 1,200 pending inquiries relating to online harassment, identity theft, pornography and other offences registered in Karachi.

In Nepal, the vague provisions of laws, enabling censorship powers of the government have been constantly resisted through media movements. In January 2022, the FNJ submitted a letter to the authorities in Karnali province, seeking an amendment to the Information Technology and Mass Communications Bill for multiple reasons including its restriction on the free usage of social media as it criminalises content on social media which can have a detrimental effect on Nepal’s “national unity”.

Worryingly, the downward spiral of media freedom is visible even more today. Threats to the press deprive journalists of democratic liberties, including access to honest and fact-based journalism, which is the pillar of media independence. Progress in bolstering media autonomy may prove in time to be an effective countertrend to the growing threats facing journalists both on and off the digital media landscape.