Last week, Asma Jahangir, a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan, was appointed as the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Iran. This directed a barrage of insults and threats at the human rights lawyer and activist, on social media.

The overarching theme of the tweets and comments internet trolls shot at her was that she was a "traitor" who "should return to her homeland India, or Iran," depending on which country the troll was angrier at.

This is not the first time Jahangir has dealt with such accusations on social media. After last month’s attack on lawyers and hospital staff in Quetta, photographs of Jahangir standing on a road with a mountainous landscape behind her went viral. The (unfounded) allegation was that she was vacationing in the North while the lawyer’s community was mourning. Within minutes, Jahangir, and other supporters, clarified that the photograph was taken in Gilgit, where she had travelled for work.

But the damage was done. The wheels were set in motion, and tweet after tweet, ordaining her as "traitor" were sent off.

"It’s so easy to malign someone on social media," explains Marvi Sirmed, a journalist and political commentator who herself has dealt with similar allegations on social media. Often, internet trolls don’t even need evidence to label someone. "They simply superimpose the Indian flag or the Star of David over my face or someone else’s face and in one instant we become Indian/Israeli agents."

Another tactic political trolls use, she explains, is that they find an old talk show, edit out the context of your dialogue and you speaking one controversial and context-less sentence goes viral. "You spend the next one week explaining to the public how your words were twisted and taken out of context," says Sirmed. "But by the time the narrative of you being anti-state has already been established."

Despite the fact that social media can make martyrs and traitors out of whomever they desire, it should still be noted that compared to electronic media, social media has more space for alternate voices and dissenting opinions. "Think of it as a podium where you can go and speak without having to wait for a television anchor to invite you," says Sirmed.

Read also: Editorial

Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, Viber and text messages are all considered safer mediums, than television, to express alternate opinions. "Newspapers and television don’t have room for different opinions, and on social media the space is rapidly becoming contested and polluted, but it may be the only arena where expressing dissent is possible," says Raza Rumi, a policy analyst and journalist.

Ahmed Quraishi, a talk show anchor on Neo News, is also of the view that social media is a space where people can exchange their views in a much freer manner than on television, especially since 2014. To back up his claim Quraishi says that all we need to do is have a look at Twitter’s daily trends. "The trends change daily and it’s obvious that different political and religious ideologies are behind them, this shows the diversity of opinions that are present in the country, hence proving that  social media forums do allow a variety of opinions and voices to flourish," says Quraishi.

This shows, according to Quraishi, that the younger generation is far more vibrant and eclectic than the previous generation. "The different opinions and arguments and trolling is vibrant, positive and harmless as long as nobody gets killed," says Quraishi.

This danger of getting killed, or attacked, may be one of the central arguments working against the current environment of social media that is quick to act as the judge and jury.

Being trolled on social media for presenting an alternate opinion is not unique to Pakistan. What makes social media trolling in Pakistan different, violent and dangerous is the fact that our state is weak and our non-state actors are powerful, says Rumi,. "Patriotism [in Pakistan] is not just linked to the discourse on nationalism," explains Rumi. "You have to adhere to many ideas apart from nationalism, to be considered patriotic; culture, traditions and Islam are all part of the baggage."

He explains there are numerous non-state actors on social media that check your ‘patriotism’ and then malign and threaten you, for alternate opinions. Of late, he adds, more checks have been added to the mix. "The cyber crime laws are the response of the state to check dissent," says Rumi. He points out that various political and religious parties, and parts of the security establishment have all developed social media wings that are all hyper active in naming and shaming those who oppose their views.

Sirmed adds that some social media trolling teams have also been created by television anchors to act as proxies for the security establishment.

TV anchor, Quraishi, says that "just because one receives vitriolic responses to their opinions on social media doesn’t imply that there is no space for alternate viewpoints on these mediums." He is of the view that when you challenge the status quo, there will be some who support you and others who oppose you and will try and intimidate you. "When you are expressing ideas that society may not be ready for, we should be ready for a backlash. I cannot be a crybaby and say that no one should attack me."

But on social media it seems that the lines between being attacked, receiving feedback, criticism, rape and death threats is hazy.

"The backlash that critiques me and helps me improve myself is always welcome," says Sirmed. But, she explains, there is a difference between critique and trolling. "Naom Chomsky was trolled. That was acceptable. On the other hand, when I present an opinion that people find disagreeable, I receive messages that tell me to tell my husband to prepare my grave," says Sirmed, adding, "Such backlashes disprove that social media is a healthy, productive space where alternate ideas can be exchanged and expressed, without fear of bodily harm or even death," she adds.