The arrest was made at a time when public opinion, due to wide use of the internet and other media, was split in a fairly rigid fashion between those supporting a secular state versus those supporting a conservative Islamic state. Bangladesh was formed based on secular principles and Bengalis, especially those on the political left, support a secular and socialist state. The Awami League, the current ruling party, is generally considered to be a leftist-leaning part, while the BNP is generally considered more right wing. [6]Khan has held the post of Deputy Attorney General in the past during the term of the current opposition party BNP—and is widely perceived (at least domestically) to be right wing. Since Khan belongs both to the Bar as well as the NGO sector of civil society, the government has been heavily criticized for his arrest, especially in international forums. The Bar also formed a peaceful protest, which included both practicing lawyers as well as those involved with legal services NGOs. Both civil society and the Bar has provided full support for Khan’s release as a gesture to protect the right of free expression for one of their comrades, despite political differences. However, their approach has been most certainly cautious due to deep rooted values of the Bengali identity in most civil society quarters. Although there was full support from the Supreme Court Bar, which after recent bar elections is now largely dominated by the BNP, it is important to note that the civil society and many of the lawyers are largely pro-secularity and, therefore, advocating for Khan in this political climate could be tantamount to advancing anti-secularism objectives. As Naeem Muhaimen eloquently puts—“in a fast moving situation, with opponents and allies squared off, the first thing to shrink is the space for internal critique…that seeks to help the movement, but also a critique some are not ready to hear yet.”[7] Some may not have agreed with his position or critique given the political climate but they certainly advocated for his right to take those positions and continued to advocate for him on grounds of constitutional and human rights. Pressure from these civil society actors and members of the legal fraternity eventually led to his release some two or three months later.
The consequences of the more restrictive amended internet law of 2013 is yet to be seen. However, recent events present a rather bleak picture for internet freedom—where new media is now open to censorship by the state, challenging fundamental rights of its citizens. The entire globe is dealing with balancing security and morality with freedom of expression, and legal scholarship and jurisprudence has not kept pace with technology. This is true for Bangladesh, where it's law enforcement and judicial officers are not adequately trained in respecting and protecting the freedom of privacy and expression in the internet era. Bangladesh has a long way to go in terms of adopting holistic internet governance policies and monitoring mechanisms which strike a balance between privacy and regulation, thus complying with international standards. Any regulation ought to take into account the constitutional right to freedom of expression and narrowly define the circumstances under which deviation from it can occur. The use of internet is now indispensable in almost all sectors- in keeping up with global pressures as well a relatively strong civil society and media- it is likely that a strong challenge to these draconian laws are in the not-so-distant future.
An important question, which is beyond the scope of this article but nevertheless requires some contemplation: “how do we protect and promote the positive social and economic benefits of network technologies that are global?”[8] Internet freedom, in its most basic form, is a means to connect all users to the global internet and the websites of their choosing and to each other—enabling those users to “access new markets, new information, new learning, and new opportunities.”[9] Thus, the greater the level of state-sponsored censorship on the internet, the greater will be the potential social and economic disadvantage to citizens. Internet freedom encompasses both positive and negative freedoms—the right of the public to hear from all voices in the society as well as the freedom from censorship by governments i.e expressing without restraint.
'new media is now open to censorship by the state, challenging fundamental rights of its citizens. The entire globe is dealing with balancing security and morality with freedom of expression'