In a move that has sparked outrage among journalists, media rights groups, and political activists, YouTube has taken down 27 channels linked to Pakistani journalists and opposition figures following a court order issued in Islamabad. The decision, based on allegations of spreading anti-state and false content, has raised serious concerns about censorship, due process, and the shrinking space for dissent in Pakistan’s digital media landscape. Affected journalists have vowed to challenge the order, calling it an attack on free speech and a violation of constitutional rights.
Full report – https://voicepk.net/2025/07/journalists-vow-to-challenge-decision-to-ban-youtube-channels/
AI summary
Following an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order, YouTube removed 27 channels operated by Pakistani journalists and media activists, primarily linked to the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, for allegedly spreading “anti-state content” and “fake, misleading information.” The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) initiated the request under Section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, accusing the channels of disseminating defamatory, provocative content that could incite public unrest or harm state institutions. The court, led by Judicial Magistrate Muhammad Abbas Shah, issued the order on June 24, directing Google to block the channels without notifying or hearing from the affected journalists.
Prominent journalists affected include Matiullah Jan, Ahmad Noorani, Asad Ali Toor, and others like Imran Riaz and Orya Maqbool Jan. The journalists, led by Habib Akram, plan to collectively challenge the order, arguing it violates their right to free expression and was issued without due process. They claim the NCCIA and court did not specify offending content or provide them an opportunity to respond.
The decision has drawn widespread condemnation from human rights and media organizations, including the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), Supreme Court Press Association, and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). These groups criticize the order as a misuse of legal provisions, a violation of constitutional rights to free speech, and an overreach of judicial authority, as PECA cases should be handled by higher courts. They argue the blanket ban on entire channels, rather than targeting specific content, conflates dissent with criminality and undermines democratic principles.
The SCBA emphasized that while freedom of speech has limits, the order’s lack of transparency and denial of a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) renders it legally questionable. The Forum for Digital Rights and Democracy (FDRD) condemned the bans as part of broader digital repression, including internet shutdowns and surveillance, urging civil society and international bodies to oppose these measures. The affected journalists and organizations are calling for the reversal of the ban and an end to the harassment of dissenting voices.
