The Criminal Investigation Department arrested Samsuzzaman Shams — a journalist of the Daily Prothom Alo — based on a case filed at Ramna Police Station in Dhaka a few days ago who was later sent to jail, leading to widespread controversy over the freedom of expression and the digital security act in Bangladesh. According to several sources including the BBC, Shams was arrested under the Digital Security Act over a false, fabricated and ill-motivated report published in the Daily Prothom Alo on the independence day of Bangladesh. Many have criticized the arrest of the reporter and the DSA, though the government has blamed the published report as an attempt to undermine the independence of the country and tarnish its image.
It is pertinently notable that the freedom of expression, a constitutionally given freedom, has significantly reduced in Bangladesh, which ranked 162 last year out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders, mainly because of the digital security act, passed and enacted in 2018, and its rigorous application and misuse. A number of Bangladeshi journalists were detained under the act in the last few years. Also, many do not feel comfortable in rightly criticizing the government. Consequently, there is growing criticism of the act, not only from the opposition parties but also from journalists and other groups of civil societies in the South Asian country. Many are also growingly demanding the cancelation of the act, often rendered a draconian act.
But the freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to publish false and fabricated content. Definitely, false content is published in media— both intentionally and unintentionally. Many media outlets later make corrections. This is a globally accepted practice in disseminating correct content. The positive side is that the Daily Prothom Alo made corrections to the content after social media criticism. But the main problem is that the stated correspondent gave BDT 10 to the child and wrote his own views in the child’s name, though this act may or may not reflect his ill-intention behind the preparation and dissemination of the report in the daily on the Independence Day and the published quotation-like expression on the affordability and independence is not image-tarnishing.
Given that the stated Prothom Alo correspondent generated the quotation/view from the child in exchange for BDT 10, the actions followed are convincingly not a misuse of the digital security act, even though it was used to file the case. But since the controversial digital security act is often used to create fear among journalists and others and silence freedom of expression, it is at least desired that the controversial clauses of the law be revised and the use of it is relaxed. Definitely, the Press Council needs to be empowered to deal with problems including false and fabricated reporting. But it is also desired that journalists reflect responsibility in their reporting.
Amir M Sayem
Chief Editor
Dhaka Opinion Magazine
