Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees freedom of thought and conscience and the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression. Yet successive governments, regardless of political affiliation, have repeatedly restricted these freedoms and used criminal law against citizens for expressing views critical of those in power. The expansion of social media has intensified this problem. Rather than recognising digital platforms as important spaces for public participation, successive governments have increasingly sought to regulate online expression.

The Digital Security Act (DSA), enacted in 2018, was widely criticised for criminalising legitimate expression and was frequently alleged to have been misused against citizens. Individuals faced prosecution over Facebook posts and other online statements, including criticism of the government. Following sustained criticism, the DSA was replaced by the Cyber Security Act (CSA) in 2023. Though new in name, many concerns surrounding the earlier law remained.

After the change of government in 2024, expectations were high that Bangladesh would adopt a cyber law that genuinely protected freedom of expression while addressing legitimate online harms. In 2025, the interim government replaced the CSA with the Cyber Protection Ordinance, which was subsequently enacted by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led government in 2026. Parliament amended the law in June, and further revisions are currently being considered.

The existing cyber law already permits restrictions on online content on grounds including national security, defence, public order, incitement and communal harmony. The proposed amendment to section 8(2), however, would broaden the power to block or remove content based on apprehension rather than established harm. It would also cover information considered ‘defamatory’ or ‘derogatory’ towards a person or the state. Such language raises concerns about legal certainty. When restrictions depend on what authorities apprehend may happen, or whether speech is considered derogatory, the boundaries of lawful expression become difficult for citizens/media to predict and act in accordance with.

Section 25 raises similar concerns. This section prescribes penalties of two to five years’ imprisonment and fines of BDT 1–2 million for online sexual harassment, blackmail, or the publication of obscene content. The proposed amendments, however, would expand the provision to include defamation, humiliation, disparagement, and bullying, without providing clear exceptions for expression in the public interest. Nor does the existing legal framework clearly ensure protection for such expression on these grounds. These broadly framed concepts could encompass speech or publications that portray individuals negatively, even where the information disclosed serves a legitimate public interest. This raises serious concerns about how citizens and the media can expose corruption, misuse of public resources, food or pharmaceutical adulteration, substandard infrastructure, or improper lending practices without risking legal liability for publishing information that may damage an individual’s reputation.

The proposed increase in penalties further intensifies these concerns. The maximum punishment for a general offence would reportedly increase from two to five years’ imprisonment, with more severe penalties where the victim is a woman or a person under eighteen. Broadly framed criminal offences carrying substantial prison sentences can discourage citizens or press media from discussing matters of public concern. The consequence may be self-censorship, not because citizens lack information or opinions, but because the legal consequences of expressing them are potentially oppressive.

The proposed section 26A presents another concern. It would criminalise the publication or dissemination of ‘rumours’ and ‘misinformation’ online, with a maximum punishment of ten years’ imprisonment. Unless these terms are defined with sufficient precision, determining when inaccurate information becomes a criminal offence may depend heavily on official interpretation. Criminal law requires clear and predictable standards; otherwise, legitimate disagreement, error or criticism may become vulnerable to criminalisation.

The proposed amendments would also expand state powers to access, search and seize computers, digital devices, and stored data, even for press media. More controversially, they would introduce trial by mobile courts for certain offences. These courts are presided over by executive magistrates within the administrative structure of the state. Applying such mechanisms to offences involving online expression, therefore, raises concerns about judicial safeguards and independent determination of criminal liability.

Bangladesh undoubtedly faces genuine challenges in addressing online abuse, harassment and other digital harms. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from such conduct. But regulation should not come at the expense of citizens’ ability to speak, criticise, question, and participate in public affairs.