Cyber protection law risks curbing free speech: HRSS

The Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) has said that while effective laws are needed to prevent cybercrime, citizens' constitutional rights, freedom of expression, media freedom and personal privacy cannot be curtailed in the name of cyber security. The organisation said that although the draft of the proposed Cyber Protection (Amendment) Act, 2026 contains some positive aspects, several vague and overly broad provisions have created fresh human rights concerns.

The HRSS made these remarks in a statement sent to the media on Thursday, September 17.

In the statement signed by the organisation's Executive Director Ejazul Islam, it said a cyber security law is a means of protecting citizens' rights, not a pretext for controlling expression. However, if the current draft is finalised, it could create scope for controlling expression, harassing journalists and suppressing dissent, alongside curbing cybercrime. The use of broad terms such as "apprehension" of harming the country's integrity, security, public order, the state's image, or the reputation of individuals and institutions would create scope for misuse of cases and arrests.

Therefore, the proposed amendment must be brought in line with Article 39 of the Constitution, principles of justice and international human rights standards.

The statement expressed particular concern over the proposed provisions on rumours and disinformation. It said vague and broad provisions of the Information and Communication Technology Act 2006, the Digital Security Act 2018 and the Cyber Security Act 2023 have in the past allegedly been used against journalists, writers, students, political activists, human rights defenders and ordinary citizens. The new draft proposes a maximum punishment of 10 years' imprisonment or a fine of Tk 40 lakh, or both, for spreading rumours and disinformation.

According to HRSS, unless the definition and scope of application of "unverified", "false", "distorted" or "misleading" information are made clear, journalism and human rights monitoring could be obstructed.

The statement also objected to the inclusion of defamation, vilification and bullying in provisions meant for the protection of women and children. It said if criminal cases can be filed treating political criticism, satire, cartoons, protest statements or social debate as "vilification", freedom of expression could suffer. Additionally, proposals to treat sharing content as dissemination and to punish aiding with the same penalty as the principal offence could create new problems.

In this situation, HRSS demanded separate determination of liability in cases of parody, cartoons, satire and AI-generated content, considering intent, knowledge and the extent of harm.

HRSS demanded judicial approval for blocking content and the opportunity to appeal to an independent court or tribunal. It also called for written reasons, notice and independent judicial review in cases of administrative powers such as cancelling a company's registration or licence.

The statement also questioned the composition of the Cyber Protection Council. It demanded that the council be made independent, multi-stakeholder and non-partisan, with journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers, technologists and academics included through a transparent process.

HRSS put forward nine demands, including reviewing or withdrawing the provisions on rumours and disinformation, replacing vague terms with specific definitions, protecting journalism and public interest-based expression, compensating those subjected to illegal arrest and abuse of power, and holding meaningful consultations with relevant stakeholders before finalising the law.