Thread by @HarrisRichard77

Thread 🧵

Line by line rebuttal of the objections by @DigitalRightsPK against @PTIofficial proposed #PMDA ordinance.

Let’s do away white this propaganda @fawadchaudhry

Let’s start with the first paragraph.

It claims centralisation of regulatory authority is fundamentally draconian.

That claim is untenable. It is world wide best practice.

It then makes a play about law via Ordinance, which is constitutionally correct & standard practice.

The assertion that licensing of media content providers is “managing freedom of expression” is again untrue,It’s standard best practice. Unlicensed media has many documented problems associated

The oft-repeated term “centralisation” is basically a pushback against gvt authority

The regulation of digital media, especially social media is a challenge, however that shouldn’t preclude the importance of regulating print and television media.

The government proposal is to license media companies, not individuals.

Here, they are criticising the government for their intentions to create. Code of Conduct for the media, something I have been proposing for years.

Why would the media not abide by a code of conduct, especially if it is made with consultation with the media representatives.

The next criticism is that the authority has a “carte blanche” to grant exemptions.

Yet isn’t that a good thing, because all regulators when enforcing regulations need to have some discretionary powers, as law without discretion becomes oppression.

Here; they object to media licenses having any terms and conditions and call it curtailing freedom of expression.

So they want a carte blanche & want to be above any standards, terms when it comes to being granted licenses.

The demand is untenable & comparison ludicrous.

I don’t see anything wrong with the terms that they object to, especially since the government will constitute a tribunal to appeal decisions & then still give recourse to the Supreme Court.

This is the most problematic of their ‘concerns’.

They not only equate defamation and ridicule with scrutiny and criticism, but actually want the right to “defame” the heads of state, army, etc. Freedom of expression is not the freedom to defame.

This is an unwarranted fear and makes the assumption that the government or the proposed authority does not have the nuance and ability to differentiate between the different types of media & will impose a one size fits all policy. This concern is speculative right now.

This is an unwarranted fear and makes the assumption that the government or the proposed authority does not have the nuance and ability to differentiate between the different types of media & will impose a one size fits all policy. This concern is speculative right now.

Any government licensing can potentially be subject to political abuse, but that’s not a valid argument against having one.

Recent history has shown that current media licensing has not fallen foul of political considerations & one can be confident it won’t do so in the future.

find the exclusions quite reasonable & a valid tool for the authority to have and use of it needs to do so.

Again a wrong interpretation. The law will not bar from foreign companies streaming content into Pakistan, but the intention of the law is to bar foreign unlicensed companies & media organisations to stream content & operate from Pakistan, if needed.

This is the real crux of it, maybe a Freudian slip.

Some media organisations are angry that they will not be able to receive foreign funding to promote foreign interests in Pakistani media.

Again, very strange objections.

If they don’t want the government to fund the authority, will the media industry be willing to pay for it with a further hike in licensing fees.

Also, the government are the right people to formulate policy because they’ve been elected by t ppl.

The demand to have the government’s policies by subject to court intervention is absurd & judicial over reach in the executive donain. Very strange again.

Nothing confusing about the structure, as the authority takes shape such confessions will disappear

Again, misinformation. The Authority will have a tribunal where there will be an opportunity for a hearing.

Secondly; the appeal directly to the Supreme Court after tribunal is apt, as there is no point in bogging down the process in Pakistan’s slow judicial system.

The punitive powers of the authority are correct and a must so that it has teeth. Too often Pakistani regulators have had no real powers and been ineffective in their jobs. The threat of punitive action should keep most potential offenders in check.

What’s wrong with this? Isn’t this good for protecting the media, it’s assets and people from violence and intimidation. You can’t just criticise for the hell of it.

In conclusion, these objections amount to nothing but a pushback against legitimate government regulatory practice which has been established the world over

The media can’t operate with impunity forever. No more Wild West.