The 2006 Act also established several offences (section 57) where an offence is deemed to be constituted by any person who ‘sees, hears or reads any website or electronic communication and is thereby encouraged to become immoral or dishonest,’ or ‘any harm is caused to the image of the country or of any person. This would effectively regulate or censor the intentional publication or circulation of any information which is deemed to be false, obscene or harmful so as to cause any person reading, hearing or viewing it to have a moral lapse or to become dishonest, or where such information results in defamation, or causes or is likely to cause deterioration of public order, or hurt the image of the state or any person, or hurts or is likely to hurt religious sentiments, or creates any incitement to violence against any person or association.[2] Other offences include those related to tampering with computer system and network without the permission of the owner or the custodian, hacking computer system, and intruding into any protected network defined in Sections 54, 56 and 61.
In 2010, ‘Facebook’ was temporarily blocked by the government on the basis of some questionable pictures of the Prime Minister floating around the web. Although access was later restored, the matter was later taken up in litigation challenging the constitutionality of the law, as its draconian measures ran contrary to the freedom of expression granted in the Constitution of Bangladesh. The High Court subsequently directed the government to show cause as to why the relevant provisions of the ICT Act 2006, allowing for blocking of websites and electronic communications, and providing for prosecution of certain offences, should not be held to be unconstitutional. In the meantime, however, the ICT Act of 2006 was amended.[3] The government introduced amendments, which have significantly tightened the sanctions within this law as a measure to, by the government’s account, prevent misuse of the internet. For example, the 2013 amendment to Sections 54, 56, 57 and 61 of the 2006 Act now recognize certain offences to be cognizable and non-bailable, which were previously non-cognizable and bailable. They also increased the sentence of these various cyber-crimes at a minimum of seven years’ imprisonment and a maximum of 14 years or a fine of Tk 1 crore, or both. These changes mean that law enforcement can now arrest anyone accused of violating the law, without a warrant. As a result, this Act will not only severely restrain freedom of speech and expression, but will also be open to misuse.
The 2006 Act has already claimed several controversial arrests including those of several bloggers, newspaper editor of Amar Desh daily—Mahmudur Rahman and more recently of Adilur Rahman Khan, secretary of a human rights organization. Some of these individuals made controversial claims, which were viewed as anti-regime, or in some cases, highly conservative and capable of inciting violence in an already-volatile political climate. For example, the arrest of Adilur Rahman Khan, Secretary of Odhikar, was met with widespread criticism, both nationally and internationally. The arrest concerned Odhikar’s data regarding the death toll of a clash between law enforcement and a militant and extreme Islamic faction called Hefazoti Islam.
On May 6, 2013, a proponents of this faction heavily mobilized as a reaction to the arrest and trial of Islamic group leaders for war crimes, and in response to some published materials from internet bloggers expressing sentiments largely considered anti-Islamic.[4] They engaged in violent confrontations with the police in the capital city of Dhaka. The government, through its law enforcement, exercised heavy force to suppress the violence. It is unclear what happened during the event and conflicting figures seem to be floating on both media and social media. There are figures as high as three - four thousand in the rumor mills, which seem rather exaggerated and likely used for political expediency by the opposition. At the same time, it cannot be denied that violence was used, whether in response to aggressors or otherwise. The death toll, by Odhikar’s account stood at sixty four and he demanded that the Government set up an independent commission consisting of a Supreme Court judge among other public officials; upon which it will release the names of the deceased. Odhikar justified the demand by asserting the interest of protecting the relatives, friends or associates of the victims. Odhikar also published reports of the death tolls and communications with the Government on their website. In August 2013, Khan was arrested[5] under the ICT 2006, accused of using the media and other communication to incite violence.