X is ‘threat to national security’, Pakistan govt tells SHC
![X is ‘threat to national security’, Pakistan govt tells SHC](https://dialoguepakistan.com/en/upload/media/posts/2024-07/08/x-is-threat-to-national-security-pakistan-govt-tells-shc_1720443344-b.jpg)
Web Desk
|
8 Jul 2024
The Ministry of Interior has submitted a report to the Sindh High Court regarding the recent ban on X (formerly Twitter) in Pakistan. The ministry stated that X cannot be restored as it poses a threat to national security.
According to the ministry, the ban was necessary to protect the country’s interests, and all legal requirements were fulfilled before its imposition. They argued that the ban does not violate Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, since the article allows for reasonable restrictions in the interest of national security.
The ministry emphasized that X has been used to upload hateful content against national institutions, spread misinformation, and potentially incite unrest. They noted that X, a foreign company, has been repeatedly asked to comply with Pakistani laws but has failed to do so, leaving the Ministry of Interior with no other option but to temporarily ban the platform.
The ministry further stated that on February 17, they requested an immediate ban on X due to its failure to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Pakistan and commit to complying with local laws. They emphasized that X’s actions violated Pakistani laws, forcing the government to impose the ban.
The Ministry of Interior stressed that the ban on X was imposed to protect national security and dignity, based on reports from sensitive institutions. They claimed that certain elements were using X to spread instability in the country and pointed out that other countries also impose bans on social media platforms for similar reasons.
In summary, the Ministry of Interior maintained that the ban on X was a necessary measure to safeguard national security and that the decision was made in compliance with legal and constitutional provisions.
Comments
0 comment