ecent amendments to Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act have introduced significant changes aimed at regulating online content and curbing misinformation. Passed by the parliament in January 2025, these amendments establish a Social Media Regulation and Protection Authority with investigative powers and tribunals authorised to impose up to three-year prison sentences and fines of Rs 2 million for disseminating “false or fake” information. Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar has stated that the regulations are intended to combat unregulated fake news on social media.

Since its enactment in 2016, the PECA has faced criticism for its vague provisions, which have been used to target journalists, activists and other dissenting voices. The law has facilitated arbitrary arrests, content takedowns and censorship, often justified as measures against cybercrime or threats to ‘national security.’ The new amendments’ focus on criminalising misinformation has raised concerns about potential misuse. In the absence of clear definitions or safeguards, this move could be weaponised to silence political dissent, restrict journalistic investigations and further entrench a culture of fear in online discourse. Given the already precarious state of the information ecosystem, these amendments could deepen repression, making it riskier for journalists and citizens to question those in power.

Criminalising misinformation is a fundamentally flawed approach that has failed to deliver results anywhere in the world. The idea that misinformation can be eliminated through legal punishment ignores the complexity of how falsehoods spread and why people believe them. Governments that have introduced such laws often claim they are protecting the public from harm, but in reality, these measures do little to curb misinformation. Instead, they create the illusion of action while ignoring the real work required to address the problem at its roots.

One of the clearest examples of this failure is Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act. Introduced in 2019, it was supposed to tackle the spread of misinformation online. Yet, despite giving authorities broad powers to demand corrections or removals of false content, misinformation remains rampant. Instead of fostering an informed public, the law has led to an environment where trust in official sources has been further eroded because people perceive enforcement as arbitrary or politically motivated.

A similar situation can be seen in Russia, where misinformation laws have been used to control narratives rather than to promote factual accuracy. These laws, initially framed as necessary tools to counter fake news, have been deployed mostly to target independent journalists and suppress narratives that diverge from the state’s preferred version of events. Instead of reducing misinformation, they have fuelled an information vacuum where people are left with fewer credible sources to rely on, ultimately worsening the very problem these laws claim to solve.

The fundamental issue with criminalising misinformation is that it assumes that the problem is purely legal when, in reality, it is deeply social, technological and educational. Misinformation spreads not just because it exists, but because people believe it, share it and use it to reinforce their biases. No law can change such behaviour. What works instead are long-term, evidence-based strategies: robust media literacy programmes, independent fact-checking initiatives and support for quality journalism. These solutions are difficult and take time, but they have been shown to actually reduce misinformation’s impact.

Passing a law that criminalises misinformation, on the other hand, is a quick way for governments to claim that they are addressing the problem without doing the hard work necessary for real change. It allows them to “check a box,” creating a legal framework that looks robust on paper while doing little to actually stop the spread of falsehoods. Worse, it can create unintended consequences—people become more suspicious of fact-checking efforts when they are tied to state enforcement, and bad actors simply find new ways to bypass legal restrictions.

If the federal government is serious about tackling misinformation, it should invest in initiatives that actually work. Schools should integrate media literacy into their curricula, journalists should be trained in fact-checking techniques and independent fact-checking organisations should be supported rather than undermined. Public trust in information is not built through criminalisation; it is built through transparency, education and the strengthening of credible news sources. Laws that attempt to legislate truth are not just ineffective; they are counterproductive, distract from the real solutions and waste time that could be spent on efforts that actually make a difference.

On the other hand, misinformation can indeed pose significant risks, especially when it leads to harm or incites violence. However, Pakistan’s legal framework already provides mechanisms to address such issues. Section 505(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code criminalises statements made with the intent to incite, or which are likely to incite, any class or community to commit offences against any other class or community. This provision is designed to prevent and punish speech, or disinformation, that could lead to public disorder or violence.

Additionally, defamation, defined as the act of damaging someone’s reputation through false statements, is addressed under Pakistan’s Defamation Ordinance, 2002. This law recognises both slander (spoken defamation) and libel (written defamation) and provides remedies for individuals whose reputations have been unjustly harmed. Empowering and effectively implementing these existing civil defamation laws can offer recourse to those affected by harmful misinformation without resorting to new, potentially overreaching legislation.

By utilising and strengthening these existing legal provisions, Pakistan can address the actual harm caused by misinformation without enacting new laws that may infringe upon freedom of expression and harm the overall information ecosystem. This approach ensures that the response to misinformation is balanced, targeting genuine harms while safeguarding democratic values.

The writer is the director and founder of Media Matters for Democracy. He writes on media and digital freedoms, media sustainability and countering misinformation