Voice for Reform roundtable warns of speech suppression through vague defamation clauses and disproportionate penalties
Civil Society Decries Cyber Law Amendments as Resurgence of DSA
- Lawmakers, jurists, and rights advocates voice alarm over proposed Cyber Protection Act amendments reviving DSA-style curbs
Sounding an urgent alarm over the shrinking corridors of democratic dissent, legal scholars, members of parliament, investigative journalists, and human rights defenders warned that proposed amendments to the 'Cyber Protection Act 2026' risk reviving the draconian framework of the repealed Digital Security Act (DSA)
The consultation, titled "Free Speech Under Threat Again: How Far Do Cyber Law Amendments Mirror the DSA?", was organized by the citizen advocacy platform 'Voice for Reform' on the 8th floor of the BDBL Building in Karwan Bazar, Dhaka, on Monday, 21 September 2026
Delivering the opening remarks, Voice for Reform Co-convener Fahim Mashroor recapped the legislative background: following the July mass uprising, the interim administration repealed the contentious DSA and its subsequent iteration, the Cyber Security Act, replacing them with the 'Cyber Protection Ordinance 2025'
Presenting the keynote paper, rights defender and former member of the Inquiry Commission on Enforced Disappearances Dr. Nabila Idris refuted the state's narrative
Dismissing the decency argument, Dr. Idris remarked, "The debate is not about decency; it is about who holds punitive power. Free speech is a citizen’s constitutional defense against state excess, while civility is a mutual social contract. When the police intervene over perceived disrespect, familial decorum transforms into a police precinct affair. The state is not a guardian, nor are citizens children. Attempting to enforce civility through state coercion will not bring decency; it will bring authoritarianism
Supreme Court Advocate Manzur Al Matin underscored that modifying Section 25 to incorporate subjective criteria such as "defamation" and "belittlement"—extending criminality to expressions, conduct, and even non-verbal "insinuations"—effectively positions the state as an arbiter of personal social standing
National Citizen Party (NCP) lawmaker Advocate Abdullah Al Amin argued that repressive statutes are resurfacing under alternate nomenclatures, noting that superficial rebranding of agencies like RAB has failed to reform operational culture, leaving independent investigations into enforced disappearances compromised
Highlighting stark judicial inequities, Alternative organizer Dr. Taznuva Zabeen criticized proposing up to 10 years imprisonment for vague misinformation while capping sentences for religious incitement or active violence at two years
Rashtro Sangskar Andolan leader Didar Bhuiyan pointed to built-in immunity provisions as the most alarming feature, asserting that inflating punitive severity without due process is ineffective
The plenary featured interventions from Faisal Mahmud, Managing Editor of The Daily Ouadar; Barrister Tazrian Akram Hossain; ZDP Convener Nayeem Ahmad; Sopran Research Director Zarif Rahman; and DSA Victim Network representative Golam Mahfuz.
//DBTech/IH/SME/MIST//
Sounding an urgent alarm over the shrinking corridors of democratic dissent, legal scholars, members of parliament, investigative journalists, and human rights defenders warned that proposed amendments to the 'Cyber Protection Act 2026' risk reviving the draconian framework of the repealed Digital Security Act (DSA)
The consultation, titled "Free Speech Under Threat Again: How Far Do Cyber Law Amendments Mirror the DSA?", was organized by the citizen advocacy platform 'Voice for Reform' on the 8th floor of the BDBL Building in Karwan Bazar, Dhaka, on Monday, 21 September 2026
Delivering the opening remarks, Voice for Reform Co-convener Fahim Mashroor recapped the legislative background: following the July mass uprising, the interim administration repealed the contentious DSA and its subsequent iteration, the Cyber Security Act, replacing them with the 'Cyber Protection Ordinance 2025'
Presenting the keynote paper, rights defender and former member of the Inquiry Commission on Enforced Disappearances Dr. Nabila Idris refuted the state's narrative
Dismissing the decency argument, Dr. Idris remarked, "The debate is not about decency; it is about who holds punitive power. Free speech is a citizen’s constitutional defense against state excess, while civility is a mutual social contract. When the police intervene over perceived disrespect, familial decorum transforms into a police precinct affair. The state is not a guardian, nor are citizens children. Attempting to enforce civility through state coercion will not bring decency; it will bring authoritarianism
Supreme Court Advocate Manzur Al Matin underscored that modifying Section 25 to incorporate subjective criteria such as "defamation" and "belittlement"—extending criminality to expressions, conduct, and even non-verbal "insinuations"—effectively positions the state as an arbiter of personal social standing
National Citizen Party (NCP) lawmaker Advocate Abdullah Al Amin argued that repressive statutes are resurfacing under alternate nomenclatures, noting that superficial rebranding of agencies like RAB has failed to reform operational culture, leaving independent investigations into enforced disappearances compromised
Highlighting stark judicial inequities, Alternative organizer Dr. Taznuva Zabeen criticized proposing up to 10 years imprisonment for vague misinformation while capping sentences for religious incitement or active violence at two years
Rashtro Sangskar Andolan leader Didar Bhuiyan pointed to built-in immunity provisions as the most alarming feature, asserting that inflating punitive severity without due process is ineffective
The plenary featured interventions from Faisal Mahmud, Managing Editor of The Daily Ouadar; Barrister Tazrian Akram Hossain; ZDP Convener Nayeem Ahmad; Sopran Research Director Zarif Rahman; and DSA Victim Network representative Golam Mahfuz.
//DBTech/IH/SME/MIST//
