See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/390266095

Digital Authoritarianism and Journalistic Dissent in Pakistan: An Empirical

Investigation of PECA

Article in Journal of Social & Organizational Matters · January 2024

DOI: 10.56976/jsom.v3i4.170

CITATIONS

3 authors, including:

Adeel Anwar
University of Lahore
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adeel Anwar on 28 March 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

Digital Authoritarianism and Journalistic Dissent in Pakistan: An

Empirical Investigation of PECA
Adeel Anwar1, Abul Hassan*2, Sidra Yousaf3
1
MPhil Scholar, School of Creative Arts, University of Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
2*
Associate Professor, School of Creative Arts, The University of Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
3
MPhil Scholar, School of Creative Arts, University of Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
Corresponding author: [Link]@[Link]
Keywords: PECA 2016, Digital The technological advancement has empowered the governments to
Authoritarianism, Press adopt ever more restraining policies under the disguise of cybersecurity.
Freedom, Journalistic Dissent, In Pakistan, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016 was
Media Censorship, Online enacted to combat the menace of cybercrimes. However, this has sparked
Surveillance substantial concerns over its use as a tool for state censorship and
DOI No: suppression of journalistic dissent. This paper examines how PECA has
[Link] influenced and obstructed press freedom and media practices in the
3i4.170 country. This study incorporated survey and in-depth interviews of long
serving journalists of leading media organizations with the intent to
understand their awareness and perception of PECA law in shaping the
new facets of journalism in Pakistan. The findings revealed that
journalists consider PECA playing a self-censorship and legal
intimidation role in their professions while they feel restricted and bound
to abide by their organizational owners in order to survive their
livelihood. Journalists also predicted for this laws misuse in future for
uncertain gains which may destroy the profession of journalism and keep
hope in fair policies to be implemented in future. Moreover, this study
concludes with several recommendations for balancing cybersecurity
with press freedom.

641
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

1. Introduction
There is not an iota of doubt that digital advancement is transforming the societies. This
also changes the way how we communicate, share information, and take part in the public
discourse. Although these technologies are offering greater connectivity and better access to
information, however, they are also strengthening the governments with unprecedented tools
to monitor the citizens, control the narratives, and suppress the dissenting voices (Timotheou
et al.,2023). This dual impact of digitalization is now a crucial part of modern governance,
especially in those countries where democratic institutions are fragile and the political system
is unstable (McCarthy et al., 2023). Pakistan is also exemplifying this trend with its evolving
regulatory frameworks (Khan & Kanwel, 2023).
The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) was enacted in 2016 and since its
enactment, this act has undergone several amendments (Iqbal et al., 2023). This significant shift
was initially introduced to combat cybercrimes such as hacking, identity theft, and online
harassment (AllahRakha, 2024). However, the current study proved that it became a
controversial legislative instrument, criticized for enabling state surveillance, media
censorship, and the suppression of political dissent. Moreover, media professionals also think
that this law has granted massive powers to law enforcement agencies and allows them to block,
remove, and prosecute online content that is considered “objectionable” without proper judicial
oversight (Shankar & Ahmad, 2021). This study illustrates that cybersecurity and countering
digital crimes are genuine concerns but the implementation of PECA has actually fuelled fears
of authoritarian overreach amongst the journalist community.
The article “Pakistan’s Cybercrime Law: Boon or Bane” published in 2016 also portrays a
miserable picture and states that the broader definitions of offenses in this law such as “anti-
state narratives,” “fake news,” and “defamation” have left journalists and human rights activists
vulnerable to prosecution (Akhlaq, 2021). These terms with improper definitions provide a
strong base for government authorities to criminalize criticism and control public opinion under
the excuse of ensuring national security (Butt et al., 2022). Furthermore, high-profile cases
such as the prosecution of journalist Shahzeb Jillani and the enforced disappearances of several
bloggers emphasize how PECA has been weaponized against dissenting voices.
Several senior journalists including Hamid Mir emphasized the chilling effect of PECA
on freedom of expression during their talk shows. International organizations like Reporters
Without Borders and Human Rights Watch have also stated that PECA can impact the press
freedom in Pakistan and will affect the ranking of the country. They also mentioned that there
are chances that country may be placed among the most dangerous places of the world for
media workers.
The theoretical background for this research is based on the concept of “digital
authoritarianism” which is basically a governance model where states use technologies only to
limit the rights related to the freedom of expression. In this context, PECA helps as a legislative
tool that allows surveillance, censorship, and media control. This ability of the state to monitor
and manipulate the content that is available online with the help of different tools directly
influence the independence of journalists. Due to which journalists then use different
techniques to hide their identities.

642
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

1.1 Problem Statement

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) was passed in Pakistan in 2016 to
fight cybercrime. However, media workers openly declared this law as a potential threat for
their freedom. Journalists stated that many parts of the law are not clearly defined which will
lead towards their prosecution without any fault. Media workers also protested and stated that
it is important to control cybercrimes but measure must be clear. Due to this reason, researcher
planned to investigate that how PECA is influencing the media workers and why they are
declaring this law as a threat for them. This point is exposed in this study after detailed analysis
of the law and after taking the observations of the journalists.
1.2 Significance of the Study
This paper is about the impact of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) on
the practices of journalism in Pakistan. It is very important due to number of reasons.
Researcher has tried to fill the gap in existing research on this topic. With the help of the
findings of this research one can improve the existing environment of Pakistan. It is true that
there are lot of things that needs to be improved for the betterment of media freedom. So, this
research also has aim to promote press freedom in the country. Researcher has designed this
study to give theoretical perceptions about the digital authoritarianism and discourse of
democracy. The findings will help both the journalists and the policymakers as they will be
able to understand the actual relationship between these concepts. This research will also help
them to understand the views of journalists about PECA.
1.3 Research Questions
1. How does the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) restrict journalistic dissent
in Pakistan?
2. How PECA is shaping the online reporting practices, self-censorship, and critical
expression of Pakistani Journalists?
3. What are the perceptions of Pakistani journalists regarding PECA's implications on
press freedom?
2. Literature Review
The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) was passed by the government of
Pakistan in 2016 for cybercrimes under the national action plan. Government stated it as an
important part of national security. however, when this law was introduced, media persons
started labelling this as a law to control the media and the journalists. It was stated that this law
can be misused against the journalists in order to control them. The literature review in this
study will examine the existing researchers on these types of views and the content related to
this topic.
This aim of this review is to understand the concept of authoritarianism that is due to
the use of digital technologies and that is a threat for the democracy. It is important to definer
digital authoritarianism, which states that it is an approach used by the governments to control
the media by surveillance and censorship (Morozov, 2011). In underdeveloped countries like

643
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

Pakistan, governments are increasingly employing digital tools to impose restrictions on media
freedoms through several laws including PECA, with clear aims to repress dissenting voices.
These trends have far-reaching implications because they not only affect individual
journalists and media professionals but also undermine the basic principles of democracy by
limiting public access to critical information. Moreover, the rapid advancement of digital media
has also transformed the lifestyle of people. This digitalization changed the ways how people
consume and share information. Now social media platforms are powerful tools for political
engagements and mobilizations. However, they have also been used by the state to control the
dissenting voices. Authoritarian regimes worldwide have increasingly turned to digital
technologies to monitor citizens and suppress dissenting voices (House, 2022). It is observed
that the government of Pakistan is also using tool and platforms to control the opposing views
of the journalists which is harming the liberty of media (Reporters Without Borders, 2022).
Freedom of expression is the fundamental right of the public which should not be changed by
using different means.
There is massive discussion about the importance of free media in the democracy and
the reformation of human societies. Freedom of media is the ability of media workers and the
media organizations to report the incidents without any fear (Siebert et al., 1956). Criminal
cases that are launched against the journalists shows that there is threat to the freedom of the
media in Pakistan (Human Rights Watch, 2020). Researcher in this paper with the help of the
journalists suggested that press freedom is very important for democracy. When journalists are
free, they can easily question the doubted parts (Herman & Chafi, 2018). So, it is now clear
that journalists are controlled by using censorship and by launching different cases against
them.
2.1 Digital Authoritarianism: Theoretical Framework
Governments can use different techniques to control the flow of information and to
monitor the public with the help of digital tools (Morozov, 2011; Deibert, 2013). This
framework is crucial in understanding the different dynamics of state authority in Pakistan,
where these tools have increasingly been used to suppress dissent. Competitive
authoritarianism is a perfect framework to analyze the Pakistani context, where repressive
measures are adopted in democratic structures (Levitsky & Way, 2010). In this environment,
PECA-like laws serve as tools of digital authoritarianism by providing legal justification for
media censorship. The provisions of such laws can be interpreted broadly which allows the
authorities to flak the journalists not falling in line. At this point, journalists prefer self-
censorship as a survival strategy because they fear legal repercussions for their critical
reporting.
2.2 Mechanisms of Digital Control
The government of Pakistan uses several tactics to put control over dissenting voices
and digital discourse. These tactics include censorship, surveillance, and even intimidation.
These strategies directly shape the media landscape in the country.
Censorship is used globally to control the flow of information. Freedom House in 2022
reported that numerous news websites and social media platforms have faced restrictions or

644
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

outright bans due to their content being deemed critical of the state or its policies. Censorship
measures have become increasingly overt, with government actions directly targeting platforms
perceived as threatening to state narratives (Jamil, 2021). Due to this trend, journalists are
concerned about press freedom which has been eroded under the guise of curbing the menace
of cybercrimes. The legal framework established by PECA includes several provisions that
criminalize various forms of online expression as defamatory. These provisions can be used
against journalists for their critical reporting style (Human Rights Watch, 2020).
Governments are also using surveillance as a mechanism to maintain control over their
citizens. Several systems grant broad powers to monitor online activities and to create a chilling
effect on journalistic practices (Jahangir, 2024). This not only concerns privacy rights but also
gives birth to such an environment where journalists remain conscious which forces them to
self-censorship.
Intimidation is another mechanism used to ensure digital control. Journalists with
critical expression or dissenting views often face threats and violence from state and non-state
actors. Human Rights Watch documented numerous instances in 2020 where journalists faced
harassment and violence for their reporting. These instances contributed to the creation of an
environment of fear and discouraged investigative journalism. The culture of intimidation not
only affects individual journalists but also has a broader impact on media organizations that
may choose to avoid covering contentious issues altogether due to safety concerns (Jamil,
2021). This culture discourages investigative journalism and stifles dissenting voices in public
discourse (Ahmed et al, 2023).
2.3 PECA and Its Implications for Journalistic Dissent
This act was enacted in 2016 to combat cybercrime and terrorism in Pakistan (Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority, 2016). However, the broad and unclear parts of this law are
serious threat for the freedom of the media in the country (Human Rights Watch, 2020). There
are many reports about the misuse of this law just to control the media professionals and to
keep the opposing views silent (Freedom House, 2022). In this way, researcher has pointed that
PECA has important role in controlling the behavior of the journalists.
2.4 Understanding the Impact of PECA on Journalistic Dissent
Researcher has examined number of concepts in this part of the study including the
basic theoretical frameworks that can be used to understand the impact of Prevention of
Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) on journalistic dissent in the country. These frameworks
basically can be used to analyze the complex part of any study. For instance, in this study, it is
important to explain the relationship between this law, digital authoritarianism and journalistic
disagreement.
One of the important and basic frameworks which is related to this study is digital
authoritarianism a term which was used in number of studies (Morozov, 2011). It explains that
how digital technologies can be used to maintain power and control on the online platforms
and to control the those who are not obeying or not in line. In this study, researcher has also
used this concept to explain how different provisions of this law can be used to control the
journalists and media professionals.

645
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

Apart from this, the propaganda model is also a relevant framework for understanding
the working (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). This model suggests that media can be used as a tool
by the ruling powers to shape the media landscape as well as public opinion. Here at this point,
this model suggests that several ambiguous provisions of PECA are enacted deliberately just
to control the dissenting narratives and suppress those who are not in line (Herman & Chomsky,
1988).
In short, due to PECA journalists engaged themselves in self-censorship. This research
has indicated that media professionals are now trying to avoid covering critical and
controversial stories (Jahangir et al., 2024). These types of changes are now undermining the
role of journalism as a watchdog. This also has limited the public to very limited perspectives
of any story. Moreover, self-censorship has number of faces, for instance, journalists may avoid
reporting specific issues or may speak hesitantly and tone down the whole story (Ahmed et al.,
2023). Such types of practices not only affect the capabilities of journalists but also alter the
media landscape.
To conclude this whole discussion, this literature review has not only highlighted the
significance of different theoretical frameworks but will also prove substantial in understanding
the impact of PECA on dissenting voices. Moreover, a detailed analysis of existing literature
on digital authoritarianism, censorship, and the propaganda model assisted in uncovering the
relationship between PECA, journalistic dissent, and freedom of speech in Pakistan.
3. Methodology
A mixed-method approach has been used in this study to explore the impact of PECA
on journalistic dissent in the country. The paper includes online surveys of 25 persons and in-
depth interviews with 5 media professionals in order to collect both qualitative and quantitative
data. This approach helped to create a comprehensive understanding of how this act has
affected the freedom of the press and online practices of Pakistani journalists. This
methodology was adopted intentionally to capture broad patterns and deeper insights not only
through surveys but also through in-depth interviews.
Furthermore, the design of the research is descriptive and exploratory and utilizes both
quantitative and qualitative methods to answer the research questions. In this study, the
quantitative approach will assist in assessing the general impact of PECA on the practices of
the media professionals, whereas, the qualitative approach will dig out the personal experiences
and perceptions. These two approaches will better answer the question of how journalists are
coping with the new situation by adopting different strategies. So, both measurables and
subjective aspects of the study are covered with the help of this combination.
3.1 Data Collection
The online survey was conducted for this research paper. Journalists from five leading
media organizations were shortlisted with at least 10 years of online journalism and mainstream
media experiences. For this purpose, a structured questionnaire was developed to investigate
the influence of PECA on overall press freedom, journalists’ awareness about the PECA law,
outcomes of restrictions posed by PECA, opinion of journalists regarding the importance of
dissenting narratives and future of journalism under such regulations.

646
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

The first part was about the basic information and was included for profiling the
individuals. The second part included the questions related to the individual’s perception of
PECA and this was included to know the familiarity of participants with PECA. The next part
included the questions related to the experience of the participants with this act.
Furthermore, the fourth and fifth parts included questions related to digital
authoritarianism and the importance of journalistic dissent in any democratic society. These
two parts were included to know how this authoritarianism is shaping the practices of
journalists and to understand the importance of dissenting voices. The last part of the
questionnaire involved to know that how PECA has influenced the journalistic practices in the
country. A purposive technique was adopted for selecting the participants for the survey. In
short, this survey assisted in understanding different perspectives linked with this research
paper.
Similarly, in-depth interviews were also conducted with a small group of journalists.
Although a small sample size was selected due to several constraints this sample has provided
valuable insights into the general impact of PECA on the media professionals. This practice
was to capture the personal experiences and detailed perspectives of some journalists on the
impact of PECA. These interviews were semi-structured to allow for flexibility in order to
explore the participant’s views and the challenges they are facing in this environment.
Interviews focused primarily on understanding that how PECA is affecting the ability
of media professionals on sensitive matters and what strategies they are adopting to cope with
legal as well as online threats. This also covered the perception of participants about freedom
of the press under PECA. Furthermore, the purposive sampling technique was used to locate
interviewees. The long serving journalists with more than 10 years of experience in multiple
media organizations as well as independent social media handles were selected as they could
not only tell about media laws but they could relate with concurrent PECA regulations with
contemporary situation with journalism profession.
4. Findings
The findings of this paper highlight the significant role played by the Prevention of
Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) on the practices of media professionals in Pakistan. This study
provides deep insights into the complex relationship between freedom of the press, self-
censorship, and digital authoritarianism. Although most of the participants had similar opinions
on the major points, some of the participants also provided different views.
Media professionals were very much aware of PECA as the majority of participants
responded positively about this act and very few respondents reported unawareness about this
law. This level of awareness about this law indicates that it is playing a central role in shaping
the media environment where media professionals are facing a number of problems while
performing their duties. However, there was a difference of opinion regarding the influence of
this law among the journalists. Some believed that PECA is negatively impacting the freedom
of the press but a notable proportion of participants highlighted that it has little or no impact
on media freedom.

647
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

In the second part, participants were asked about the influence of PECA on overall press
freedom. Few responded that it is restricting to some extent whereas several pointed out that it
is now more difficult to report on sensitive matters. Journalists also pointed that they are
encountering self-censorship due to the fear of this law. Some other respondents also stated
that they have already altered their practices in order to protect themselves from the potential
threat of prosecution under PECA.
Moreover, most of the participants indicated that PECA with its ambiguous provisions
can be used to silence the dissenting voices. This portrays that a major portion of media
professionals perceive this law as a tool for political control rather than combating cybercrimes.
Many respondents also felt that there was an increase in surveillance and censorship after the
implementation of PECA. Such types of sentiments and views of media professionals indicate
that the environment is not in favour of diverse perspectives.
There were also questions related to the outcomes of restrictions posed by PECA and
number of professionals responded that they have changed their practices by employing several
strategies to hide their identity. Many of them said they are using VPNs and pen names to
safeguard their identities while speaking on sensitive issues. A considerable ratio was also with
a view that they now normally avoid controversial topics.
It was also part of the study to examine the opinion of journalists regarding the
importance of dissenting narratives or challenging the narratives of the government in Pakistan.
A number of respondents mentioned that it is important for journalists to counter the narrative
to maintain a democratic environment. However, fear of legal repercussions forces the
professionals to avoid challenging the narratives and policies.
In the end, the findings of this study depict that journalists and media professionals are
working in a restrictive environment in Pakistan because of several provisions of PECA. This
environment where journalists use self-censorship and avoid controversial topics due to the
fear of legal provisions is harmful for the democratic societies. This is why most of the
journalists were considering these steps as a threat for the freedom of press. These journalists
were also worried because they were with the view that digital technologies are now becoming
tools and digital authoritarianism is increasing day by day. With the help of these findings, it is
very important to reconsider the provisions of this law so that journalists may feel fee to express
their voices.
5. Conclusion
The main purpose of this research was to examine the impact of Prevention of
Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) on the journalistic dissent. Another aim was to explore how the
law is affecting the freedom of the press and online practices among the journalists in Pakistan.
The findings of this paper suggest that media professionals consider that PECA is planned to
control the dissenting voices, mainly in the digital world.
It is also exposed in this study that PECA is contributing to a climate of self-censorship
among media professionals and journalists are now more reluctant to express on sensitive
issues. Participants further stated that they have changed their journalistic practices due to the
fear of prosecution, which is evident in the findings. This highlighted trend also aligns with the

648
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

concerns raised by Human Rights Watch (2020) which criticized the law because of its unclear
provisions. Freedom House (2022) also pointed out that there is an increase in the use of digital
tools for surveillance and censorship.
Furthermore, how journalists perceive PECA is also uncovered in this research. Most
of the participants considered that PECA is just a tool to supress the critical and dissent voices.
These practices and tools hinder the freedom of speech and create a monotonous environment
which is harmful for the democracy. Journalists are adopting different techniques like using
VPNs and pen names to hide their identity when reporting on sensitive matters and this
highlights the increasing restrictions on the freedom of speech. This serious situation is
reflecting the broader challenges faced by journalists and media professionals in the country
due to digital authoritarianism.
To wrap up, although PECA may have been conceived to curb the menace of
cybercrime its several ambiguous provisions and current application have raised concerns
about its effects on the freedom of the press. So, this law is not only restricting the dissenting
voices but also fostering an environment of fear and self-censorship. It is the need of time that
government must take necessary measures to preserve and promote the freedom of the press.
In this way, the government can play its role in empowering the media industry, so that the
public may have easy access to information which is prerequisite of any democratic system.
5.1 Recommendations
As per the findings of this research, the following recommendations are suggested to
solve the issues due to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) and its impact on
journalistic dissent in the country.
It is recommended that provisions of this law must be clearly defined and it is the need
of time to amend PECA. This step will confirm that no one can use PECA to negatively impact
the freedom of the press. Clear definitions of what constitutes cybercrime and terrorism are
essential to prevent the law from being used as a tool to silence dissenting voices (Human
Rights Watch, 2020). Media professionals must be free to express their views and to challenge
the opinion of the government. This will not only provide a diverse perspective on any issue
but also nourish the democratic system. However, media professionals also have to use this
liberty with responsibility.
In this digital era, it is becoming essential to strengthen the legal protections for media
professionals. This step will ensure that journalists can work without any fear. So, the
government also needs to take these steps timely. For this purpose, a more robust system must
be there for the accountability of those who are involved in online harassment. Moreover, the
independence of the press is the basic component of any democratic setup. Encouraging the
establishment of an independent press commission could help address complaints related to
harassment and censorship, ensuring a free and open media environment (Siebert et al., 1956).
Furthermore, the negative impact of PECA can be countered with the nationwide
awareness campaign to educate the public on the importance of the freedom of the press. It is
also crucial that the public must understand the impact of PECA on journalistic freedom. In
this way, a more informed and active society can be created.

649
Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

It is expected that the balance between measures for cybercrimes and the freedom of
the press can be achieved in a better way after the implementation of these recommendations.
These measures will not only enhance the safety of media professionals but will also contribute
to a healthier democratic media environment. This practice will lead to the creation of a system
where there will be a free flow of information and the fostering of diverse public discourse.
6. References
Ahmed, Z., Yilmaz, I., Akbarzadeh, S., & Bashirov, G. (2023). Digital Authoritarianism
Activism Digital Rights Pakistan, Journalism Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 755-768.
Akhlaq, M. A. R. I. A. (2021). Cybercrime in Pakistan: A Study of the Law Dealing with
Cybercrimes in Pakistan. PCL Student Journal of Law, 1, 31-66.
Akhtar, & Pratt. (2017). State Control Over Media: Case Study Pakistan. Journalism Mass
Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1025-1045.
AllahRakha, N. (2024). Transformation of Crimes (Cybercrimes) in Digital Age'. International
Journal of Law and Policy, 2(2).
Azeem, M. (2019). Media Censorship Pakistan: Analysis. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 757-770.
Aziz, F. (2022, December 12). Project PECA I: How to silence a nation. Dawn. Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 13 Nov. 2024].
Butt, F. A., Makk, M., & Yamin, T. (2022). ‘National Security’and the Construction of Digital
Governance Models: Content Regulation in the Pakistani ‘Digital Public
Sphere’. Webology, 19(2),25-39.
Chaudhry, A. R. (2018). Role Media Political Change: Case Study Pakistan. Asian Journal
Communication, 28(4), 361-375.
Dawn. (2020). PECA law: Boon or bane? Dawn Newspaper. Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 18 Oct. 2024].
Deibert, R. J. (2013). Black Code: Surveillance State New World Order. Random House.
Freedom House. (2022). Freedom on the Net 2022. [Online] Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 23 Oct. 2024].
Herman, E., & Chafi, A. (2018). Importance Press Freedom. Journal Media Studies, 12(2),58-
70..
Human Rights Watch. (2020). World Report 2020: Events of 2019. [Online] Available at:
([Link] [Accessed 15 Nov. 2024].
Human Rights Watch. (2022, February 28). Pakistan: Repeal amendment to draconian cyber
law. Human Rights Watch. Available at: [Link]
repeal-amendment-draconian-cyber-law [Accessed 15 Nov. 2024].
Iqbal, M., Talpur, S. R., Manzoor, A., Abid, M. M., Shaikh, N. A., & Abbasi, S. (2023). The
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016: Understanding the Challenges in
Pakistan. Siazga Research Journal, 2(4), 273-282.
Jahangir, R. (2024). Pakistan Verge Techno-Authoritarian Turn. Tech Policy Press.
Jamil, S. (2021). The rise of digital authoritarianism: Evolving threats to media and Internet
freedoms in Pakistan. World of Media: Journal of Russian Media and Journalism Studies, 3,
pp. 5-33.
Khan, M. I., & Kanwel, S. (2023). Crime And Pakistan's Legal Framework: A Critical
Analysis. International Journal of Contemporary Issues in Social Sciences, 2(3), 558-565.

650
 Journal of Social & Organizational Matters
Vol 3 No 4 (2024): 641-651

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After Cold
War. Perspectives Politics, 8(2), 367-392.
Matthews, & Tsagaroulis. (2020). Digital Authoritarianism: Global Perspective. International
Journal Communication, 14(1), 115-130.
McCarthy, S., Rowan, W., Mahony, C., & Vergne, A. (2023). The dark side of digitalization
and social media platform governance: a citizen engagement study. Internet Research, 33(6),
2172-2204.
Mezzerma, & Sial. (2010). State-Media Relationship Pakistan. Asian Journal Communication,
20(3), 215-230.
Morozov, E. (2011). Net Delusion: Dark Side Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs.
National Assembly of Pakistan. (2024). Title of the document. National Assembly of Pakistan.
Available at: [Link] [Accessed 13
Sep. 2024].
Perveen, & Nawaz. (2018). Digital Media Landscape Pakistan: Challenges Ahead. Journalism
Practice, 12(6), 757-770.
Reporters Without Borders. (2024). World Press Freedom Index. [Online] Available at:
([Link] ) [Accessed 18 OCt. 2024].
Shabaz, M., & Kahn, M. A. (2018). Digital Censorship Pakistan: Study. Media Studies Journal,
12(3), 45-60.
Shankar, R., & Ahmad, T. (2021). Information technology laws: Mapping the evolution and
impact of social media regulation in India. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information
Technology, 41(4), 295-301.
Siebert, et al., W. (1956). Four Theories Press. University Illinois Press.
Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., ... &
Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing
schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and information
technologies, 28(6), 6695-6726.

651

View publication stats