The (temporary) ban

[Lahore_Real_Estate]

The government has approached the problem of blasphemous cartoons on Facebook as one of law and order, and it has ended (it hopes) the problem by banning Facebook temporarily. It was clearly trying to avoid the kind of violence that was the hallmark of the protests that took place when the original cartoons were published by the Jyllands Posten, the Danish newspaper where the controversy started. However, at the same time as Facebook was banned, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority also banned 800 other sites, so the ban was also used to cover more than just the cartoons. One of the sites banned was YouTube, on which some of the deeds of members of the present government, captured visually, were posted by individuals. In short, those sites were banned which showed the senior members in a bad light. This was an attempt at applying the might of the state for the benefit of state servants, using 19th century methods in the 21st.
Another aspect that needs exploration is the extent to which the ban may impact existing blasphemy. Virtual space is full of blasphemy, not just against the Holy Prophet (PBUH), but against all the holy figures of all religions. But did the additional websites blaspheme? Perhaps they did, or perhaps they did something much more painful to the rulers, which was to expose their misdeeds. The question of blasphemy in cyberspace has not received much attention, though it deserves more, for the opportunity provided by today’s Internet for expression of all opinions, including blasphemy, is not just unparalleled, but accompanied by unparalleled opportunities for anonymity. Hosts are being made responsible for this blasphemy, and it is by using the ancient laws of publishing that they are being made responsible. Cyberspace may provide unparalleled opportunities for self-expression, but someone has to sell the space which can be accessed by others. Those doing the selling have been held responsible in the past, ever since the printing press made it possible to sell space. That is why newspapers are ultimately responsible for the absence of illegal (blasphemous, vulgar, libellous, for example) material contained in advertisements. As a further means of control, in the Subcontinent, newspapers and any printed material must also have included the names of the printer, publisher and printing press. This is not so much to prevent publication of material offensive to enough of the public to cause a law and order problem, though that is a consideration, as to prevent criticism of the government. Ever since the 1857 Mutiny, the Raj was sensitive to public opinion, and sought means to control it. When the Pakistani state came into being, there was no need to make new tools, and the means of control were to hand. Electronic media were controlled by being kept in state control.