ACTING in response to a petition calling for a permanent ban on the popular social networking website Facebook, the Lahore High Court on Monday asked the Ministry of Information Technology to block all websites “spreading religious hatred”. The petitioner sought the ban because the website was apparently hosting a competition of blasphemous caricatures.Facebook, YouTube and several other websites were temporarily blocked last year for similar reasons, causing consternation among many of Pakistan’s Internet users. Thankfully, the court said that Google and other search engines should not be blocked. While it is true that some sites may be indulging in objectionable activities and deliberately attacking religious sensitivities, we feel blocking websites is not the way to deal with the issue. It is neither ethical, in view of the tenets of freedom of information, nor effective. The best response would be to ignore offensive websites as bans of any sort only give controversial issues unnecessary publicity and set a precedent to justify future moves to curb the flow of information. Preventing access to entire websites, especially social networking ones, only prevents access to valuable communication tools. In fact, the courts would be advised not to entertain such petitions at all.
Meanwhile, is it even possible for the government to set up an authority that would monitor ‘objectionable activities’ on the Internet worldwide, as demanded by the petitioner? Besides being questionable, this could prove technically impossible. Before clamping down on offending websites, the relevant authorities should consider that citizens’ privacy and freedom of expression are at stake when the state begins to police the Internet. And once a precedent has been set, where does one draw the line? Offensive material on the Internet should not be used as an excuse for the government to control what information citizens can access.