Commenting on social media, particularly Facebook, has become dangerous under this rule, and criticising government leaders has placed people in court and in jail.Īlthough the government has recently begun to acknowledge some misuse of the law, the data strongly suggests that it was widespread. Often, falsified claims have been used to justify verbal lynching and social ostracism. The ambiguity of several legal provisions in the DSA has resulted in a scenario of vigilante justice. The research also pointed out that although they are not the aggrieved party in these claimed wrongdoings, the vast majority of accusers in lawsuits brought under the statute are members of the ruling party and its supporters. Journalists and politicians were disproportionately victimised by this law, and the younger population was vulnerable to rampant abuse of the law. According to his research paper titled 'The Unending Nightmare: Impacts of Bangladesh's Digital Security Act 2018,' published by the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS), data gathered and analysed from reports between January 2020 and February 2022 revealed that the legislation had been weaponised.

Although the government stated that the law would provide individuals with security, the bill was written in such a way that it might be used to suppress critics and criminalise dissent.

The DSA, according to Prof Ali Riaz of Illinois State University, has been widely employed by government organisations and individuals in Bangladesh. Indeed, it is the current unreasonable nature of the DSA that is being challenged when legal scholars and experts speak out against the overreaching power given to law enforcement agencies through this law. However, the key words here are 'reasonable restrictions.' When talking about the effects of the Digital Security Act (DSA) and the potential impact of the upcoming data protection legislation, it is vital to ensure that the regulations imposed on freedom of expression by these laws remain reasonable. This is, in essence, the term set in Article 39(2) of the constitution. It is up to the government to decide on reasonable restrictions imposed by law to handle these situations. There can undoubtedly exist social media posts that are made with the intent and/or the potential to harm national security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, cause defamation, or incite offence. It can also be argued that the quality of political discourse online has declined dramatically in terms of usefulness and civility. Governments understand the enormous power of social media quite well. The increasing internet access in Bangladesh has allowed almost everyone to throw their two cents into the court of public opinion. Social media is a leviathan that all modern governments are struggling with.

Leapfrog letter factory