When Digital Voices Go Silent: Freedom of Expression in Pakistan’s Digital Public Sphere

NetMission Ambassador Blog Posts

When Silence Becomes a Digital Rights Question

A social-media account going silent can appear to be an ordinary digital event. In a country where social platforms have become an important space for political discussion, activism, and public participation, however, the sudden disappearance of a voice can raise a much larger question: what does freedom of speech look like in Pakistan’s digital public sphere?

This question gained renewed attention in September 2026 following social-media reports concerning young activist and digital creator Suleman Sohail. An Instagram video circulating online claimed that Sohail had disappeared and that his social-media accounts had been deactivated. Separately, journalist Iqrar ul Hassan addressed the case in an Instagram video, expressing concern over Sohail’s reported disappearance. These claims have not been independently verified, and the circumstances surrounding Sohail’s reported absence remain unclear. 

That uncertainty is precisely why the issue deserves careful attention.

The question is not only where a particular individual has gone. It is what happens to digital civic participation when people become uncertain about the consequences of speaking publicly.

Freedom of Speech Does Not Stop at the Screen

Freedom of expression has traditionally been discussed through newspapers, television, political gatherings, and public debate. Today, much of that conversation happens through social-media platforms.

The digital environment has transformed who can speak and who can be heard. A young person can comment on public policy, document an event, criticize an institution, or organize around a human-rights issue without requiring access to traditional media. During Pakistan’s 2022 floods, for example, young people used social-media platforms to share videos and firsthand accounts from affected communities, raise awareness about urgent needs, and amplify calls for relief and support. Such examples illustrate how digital platforms can enable young people to move from being passive consumers of information to active participants in public discourse. 

This makes the Internet an important part of civic space.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media (United Nations, 1948). The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 34 similarly recognizes freedom of expression as fundamental to democratic participation and public debate, including political discourse and discussion of human rights (United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2011).

The medium may have changed from the newspaper column to the social-media post, but the underlying right has not.

Pakistan’s Challenge Is No Longer Simply Access

For years, conversations about digital inclusion in Pakistan have understandably focused on connectivity: who has Internet access, who can afford it, and which communities remain digitally excluded.

But access alone does not guarantee meaningful participation.

A person may have a smartphone and an Internet connection and still hesitate to participate in public discourse if the digital environment is shaped by uncertainty, restrictions, or fear of legal consequences.

This concern extends beyond individual expression. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on Pakistan have addressed restrictions affecting freedom of expression and emphasized the need for limitations on expression to comply with international human-rights standards (United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2024).

This shifts the conversation from digital access to digital rights.

The question is no longer simply whether people can get online.

It is whether they can participate meaningfully once they are there.

Regulating Speech Without Shrinking Civic Space

At the international level, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. At the national level, Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan similarly protects freedom of speech and expression, while permitting reasonable restrictions imposed by law on specified grounds (Constitution of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan, 2025). 

The existence of legal restrictions is not, in itself, incompatible with freedom of speech. Every digital society must address genuine harms, including threats, incitement to violence, and other unlawful conduct.

The governance challenge lies in the boundaries.

When laws regulating online expression are vague, excessively broad, or applied without adequate procedural safeguards, legitimate public-interest speech can become difficult to distinguish from unlawful expression.

International human-rights standards require restrictions on freedom of expression to have a legal basis and meet requirements of necessity and proportionality (United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2011).

This distinction matters in the digital age. Regulation intended to address genuine harms should not create an environment where legitimate criticism, political discussion, human-rights advocacy, or public-interest expression is discouraged simply because it is uncomfortable.

The Chilling Effect Is Bigger Than One Individual

The most significant consequence of restrictions on freedom of speech may not always be the removal of one post or the restriction of one account.

It can be the silence that follows.

When users observe activists, journalists, lawyers, or content creators facing serious consequences for online expression, others may begin to withdraw from public discussion. The result is a shrinking digital civic space in which fewer people are willing to challenge ideas, question institutions, or discuss politically sensitive issues.

This is the chilling effect: speech can be suppressed not only by stopping people from speaking, but by creating uncertainty about whether it is safe to speak.

For a country whose younger population increasingly engages with public affairs through digital platforms, this has implications far beyond social media.

It affects democratic participation.

Imaan Mazari: Part of a Wider Debate

The legal proceedings involving human-rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir over social-media posts provide another reference point in Pakistan’s broader debate around online expression and freedom of expression. In January 2026, Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, were sentenced in connection with social-media posts under provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), and they subsequently challenged their convictions (Dawn, 2026).

NetMission.Asia has previously examined this case and its implications for Pakistan’s digital civic space. For a deeper discussion of the proceedings and their broader digital-rights implications, see “Civic Space Under Pressure: The Mazari-Chattha Case and Pakistan’s Digital Rights Standoff” and “Digital Rights and the Struggle for Civic Space in Pakistan”.

The importance of such developments is not limited to the individuals involved. They contribute to a wider question about how Pakistan draws the line between legitimate regulation of online harms and restrictions that can discourage lawful expression.

This Is Where Internet Governance Matters

Freedom of speech online cannot be addressed by governments alone.

This is where the multistakeholder model of Internet governance becomes relevant.

In Pakistan, these responsibilities are reflected in the country’s own digital governance landscape. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) plays a key role in regulating telecommunications and online services, while the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) provides the legal framework for addressing electronic crimes and related online offences.

Civil society has also actively engaged with and challenged these regulations. For example, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) convened a January 2025 consultation with journalists, lawyers, and digital-rights organizations in response to the PECA amendments.

These developments show that Pakistan’s digital public sphere is shaped not only by regulators and platforms, but also by civil society and other stakeholders advocating for the protection of digital rights.

Most importantly, users are not merely recipients of these decisions.

They are stakeholders in the digital ecosystem.

Decisions about online speech therefore require spaces where these stakeholders can engage with one another rather than treating Internet governance as a purely governmental or technical exercise.

From Digital Connectivity to Digital Citizenship

Pakistan’s next stage of digital development should not be measured only by how many people are connected.

It should also be measured by what people are able to do once they are connected.

Can they access information?

Can they express opinions?

Can they criticize public institutions?

Can they advocate for human rights?

Can they participate in policy discussions?

And can they do these things within a legal environment that is transparent, predictable, and consistent with fundamental rights?

These are questions of digital citizenship as much as they are questions of Internet governance.

The Suleman Sohail case, precisely because the circumstances remain unclear, should not be used to draw conclusions that evidence does not support. But it can serve as a reminder that the health of a digital society cannot be judged solely by connectivity or technological infrastructure.

It must also be judged by the space available for people to speak.

Protecting the Right to Speak Is a Shared Responsibility

Freedom of speech does not mean that every statement is beyond accountability. Nor does protecting digital rights mean creating an Internet without rules.

It means creating rules that are clear, lawful, necessary, proportionate, and subject to due process. These principles are central to international standards governing restrictions on freedom of expression (United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2011).

It also means ensuring that restrictions on online expression are transparent and open to meaningful oversight.

A healthy digital ecosystem requires more than secure networks and innovative technology. It requires trust.

When users believe that they can participate in public discourse without arbitrary or disproportionate consequences, the Internet can function as a space for dialogue, accountability, and democratic participation.

When that confidence disappears, people may remain connected to the Internet while becoming disconnected from public life.

The Question Pakistan Should Not Avoid

The challenge for Pakistan’s Internet governance is not simply to ask how much online speech should be regulated. The more important question is: how can Pakistan address legitimate online harms without creating an environment where people become afraid to speak, criticize, or participate in public life online? As digital platforms become increasingly important to civic participation, this question requires clear rules, transparent decision-making, procedural safeguards, and meaningful opportunities for affected communities and civil society to be heard.

What Needs to Change?

Pakistan should establish an independent oversight mechanism for decisions restricting online expression. Authorities should provide clear reasons for blocking or removing content and give affected users a meaningful opportunity to challenge those decisions. Such oversight can help ensure that efforts to address online harms remain accountable and proportionate, while protecting the freedom to speak, participate, and be heard online.

References

NetMission blog post (September 14, 2026)
Written by Iqra Ejaz (Reviewed by Jenie Fernando and Nawal Munir)