Arrests over social media posts: Who decides what speech is acceptable?
In recent weeks, the police made some arrests based on Facebook posts, comments, and shares. Each arrest sparks questions familiar to anyone who lived through the previous government's tenure: Why do these laws remain unchanged? And most critically — who decides what speech is acceptable? TBS spoke to four legal experts and human rights advocates for their take on the matter.
Govt's failure to publicly reject arrests shows implicit endorsement
Barrister Sara Hossain
Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
I think the fundamental question here is whether the law even grants authorities the power to arrest someone for expressing an opinion. This is where the problem begins — not with the arrests themselves, but with whether the legal foundation for those arrests actually exists.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
When someone is arrested for making comments about a public figure or government official, that is certainly completely wrong because it will not count as defamation. The law is very clear about this.
Also, regarding the defamation cases, if you are personally harmed by something, it is fine if you file a case about that. But you cannot file a case on behalf of another person. This is a very old law, a very old principle.
Yet the problem is that we have seen, ignoring all these basic legal principles, what used to happen before was that a third party — meaning members of Jubo League, or Chhatra League, or Swechasebak League — if something was said about any of their central leaders, they would jump in and file a case and the police would arrest someone.
This is not supposed to happen again. But we see that even now, some such incidents have occurred.
I think the issue is twofold. One is that we see a kind of over-enthusiastic action from supporters, a matter of being over-enthusiastic to protect their leaders. We are seeing this kind of thing happening.
And second is that there should be a political response, right? In these kinds of situations, we would expect that the political actors themselves will say that we don't want to see this. When similar incidents happened in the recent past, even the BNP itself took steps to withdraw the cases.
But now, unfortunately, we see that such a thing is not happening. A reflex action is happening, which is very concerning. When a government fails to publicly reject these arrests, it implicitly endorses them. And that silence is where the real problem lies.
Our politics not yet committed to freedom of expression
Altaf Parvez
Researcher and Political Analyst
These laws and the administrative powers through which these things are being done — they were like this before and they are still in place now. There has been no reform of these state laws.
And our political parties enjoy this legal power, don't they? They haven't reformed themselves either. They want to enjoy a kind of political environment devoid of protest and dissenting opinions. You could say the BNP is moving in that same direction.
These things are connected to the overall reform of the state machinery, the reform of political parties, and the reform of political culture. But that did not happen. Even after the mass uprising, nothing like that has occurred. We are still in the old arrangement. As a result, we have to accept these things, we have to face them. Bangladesh will go through this.
For now, maybe a few have been arrested; in the future, it will increase. Because our politics is not yet fully committed to freedom of expression, freedom of sight, freedom of thought. That became clear after the mass uprising — we haven't moved an inch in terms of overall reform, have we? This is just a reflection of that.
There is a feudal mind at work here, a colonial mind at work. Our politics is still in a colonial mould. Colonial powers ruled our region the way they did — they didn't allow protests or writings against them. That's why they made laws the way they did. Even though our Constitution grants freedom of expression, it is made subject to conditions.
The condition is state security and so on, but the actual interpretation is the security of the rulers. Nothing can be done that displeases the rulers or disturbs their comfort. That kind of political mindset and legal regime still exists in Bangladesh even after 55 years. It was there during the previous government's time, and it is there now.
I can tell you this from personal experience, not just personal opinion. During Begum Khaleda Zia's time, there was the Ansar rebellion. I wrote a report about it and submitted it to three publications, including the publication Chinta. The editors of those papers were arrested. Farhad Mazhar was arrested. I, of course, went into hiding. He was arrested just for publishing a report in a small fortnightly paper. Since I was involved, I remember it.
So, I don't see any reason to think of the current BNP and the past BNP as being any different. Each party, when in opposition, condemns the use of these laws. Each party, when in power, uses them. The machinery itself remains attractive to whoever controls it.
Repercussions must come from society, state must be limited
Asif Mohammad Shahan
Professor of Development Studies, University of Dhaka
Basically, it is a very clear matter. Criticism can happen, and at the same time, that criticism sometimes crosses a certain limit. There is no doubt that this needs to be dealt with. When there is what we call nasty politics — when you are doing constructive criticism on one hand, but on the other you are doing verbal abuse, or if you want to incite violence, or using obscene language — that definitely has a negative impact on politics. From that perspective, it goes towards what we call nasty politics.
But the issue here is: whose responsibility is it to address this? The government can take this responsibility. But in a liberal political system, if the one you are criticizing is himself the one closing the road on how much you can speak — this is problematic. When a political party is in a strong government or strong executive position, and if the responsibility stays in the hands of the executive, then there is a possibility of violation.
It will violate rights in a terrible way because you are criticizing the state. If the person you are criticising is the one taking action against you, and he is the one deciding what is acceptable and what is not, then he will do it according to his own convenience. And that is exactly what is happening.
This can be addressed in two ways.
One is societally. Political parties should set a standard among themselves. They should not support or facilitate such behaviour, and if political parties take this action, then citizens will also respond accordingly.
Another way is through the judiciary. An independent judiciary could set a limit — defining what is acceptable and what is not. But if the judiciary is controlled by the state, then it won't work because it will just follow the executive's lead.
Either the repercussions must come from society, or the state must be limited. Civil society has a significant responsibility here to discuss these things and fix the boundary. But the state cannot take this responsibility.
If you want to keep the state's power limited, that the state will not encroach on people's rights, then the state taking this responsibility means encroaching on people's rights. This is the basic liberal postulate: the state's role here must be limited.
One thing political parties must understand is that politics can become nasty. When you start calling someone a disgrace to the family and abusing them, that is an indication of the next step of your politics.
The next step is conspiracy theories — calling someone an agent of India, or a pawn of someone else. And then you reach a point where people say these people should actually be killed. It is the responsibility of political parties to tell their rank and file that this is unacceptable.
If they take this responsibility, a mechanism is created outside of the state. When parties send this message, it impacts citizens. They realise that if they say something that harms another individual, there will be societal repercussions. But this is the place where there is work to be done. Unfortunately, we are not doing it.
Laws should not become an instrument of oppression
Abu Ahmed Foyzul Kabir
Human Rights Activist
Recent arrests for expression of opinion spark deep concern. As a citizen, I believe freedom of expression is not just a constitutional right. It is the very soul of a democratic system. Dissent, criticism, and debate strengthen democracy. But I have watched this fundamental right be repeatedly constrained.
During the previous government, I witnessed countless cases. People were arrested for social media posts, detained without fair trial, harassed for expressing dissenting views. This created a culture of fear in society, where people became reluctant to express their own opinions. Unfortunately, we are seeing the repetition of similar kinds of incidents. This is deeply concerning.
But I must clarify one important thing. Freedom of expression is not unlimited. If someone spreads hate, incites violence, or disseminates false information, state intervention is necessary. The critical issue is that this line — this boundary between acceptable and unacceptable speech — should not be used to suppress dissent or criticism. This is incompatible with democracy. The problem is when authorities use the justification of protecting against these harms to suppress legitimate dissent and criticism.
Democratic governance requires principles of justice, transparency, and accountability. When a person is arrested or harassed because of their expression of opinion, it is not just their individual rights that are violated. It sends a negative message to society. Citizens are forced into self-control, and a silent society emerges. This is not positive for democracy.
The state's responsibility should not be to silence citizens, but to ensure a safe environment for freedom of expression. Laws should become a means of protecting citizen rights, not a tool for persecution. In a mature democracy, the goal should be to create a mindset that accepts dissent rather than suppressing it. This is the demand of our time. We need a balanced approach that protects against genuine harms while ensuring that laws never become instruments of oppression. Only then can we build a democracy that is truly free.
