Rahman regime promises free speech in Bangladesh. Cyber law draft points in opposite direction.

Bangladesh’s proposed Cyber Protection Act amendments raise a troubling question for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party government: How can a government that claims to defend freedom of expression justify criminalizing information merely because it is unverified?

The draft reportedly allows prison sentences of up to 10 years and fines of Tk4 million for online rumors and disinformation. More disturbing is the definition of “rumour,” which can encompass unsubstantiated or unverified information capable of causing confusion, panic, agitation, or unrest, without expressly requiring an intent to deceive.

That standard is dangerously broad. Journalism, political debate, whistleblowing, and ordinary public discussion often begin with information that has not yet been independently verified. Turning uncertainty itself into a potential criminal offense risks encouraging silence rather than truth.

The contradiction is particularly stark after prime minister Tarique Rahman told parliament that freedom of speech was unrestricted while also arguing that speech should remain within the “boundaries of decency.” A government committed to free expression should not leave those boundaries to vague criminal provisions that officials may interpret subjectively.

Tech Global Institute has said the amendments are, in important respects, more regressive than the Digital Security Act, 2018. Transparency International Bangladesh has separately warned that combining cybersecurity with restrictions on expression could enable surveillance and repression without adequate accountability.

Those concerns deserve more than assurances that the wording will eventually be improved. Bangladesh has already experienced the consequences of broadly written digital laws. Replacing one controversial legal framework with another that expands criminal liability would repeat rather than correct that history.

The standard should be straightforward: cybercrime legislation should target clearly defined harmful conduct, not vague categories of speech. Any final law should contain precise definitions, judicial oversight, meaningful protections for journalism and public-interest reporting, and safeguards against politically motivated enforcement.

Anything less would leave Bangladesh with a law whose claimed purpose is protection but whose practical effect could be fear, censorship, and self-censorship.