Editors’ Council proposes 12 safeguards for journalists in cyber law

Editors’ Council seeks stronger protections for journalism in proposed cyber law

Bdbusinessdaily.com – The Sampadak Parishad, widely known as the Editors’ Council, has urged lawmakers to build 12 specific protections for journalists and public-interest reporting into the proposed Cyber Security (Amendment) Act, 2026.

The organisation argues that a law intended to address cybercrime must also protect independent journalism, free expression and the public’s ability to receive important information. Its recommendations focus on legal clarity, court supervision and fair remedies when authorities seek to remove content, block platforms, conduct searches, make arrests or access digital material.

Public-interest reporting should not become a cyber offence

A central demand is that professional reporting should not be criminalised simply because it is critical, inconvenient or politically sensitive. The council said news stories, investigations, analysis and opinion written in the course of journalistic work or for the public good need explicit legal protection.

It also called for safeguards covering fair criticism, satire, cartoons, parody, consumer complaints, political commentary and unintentional professional mistakes. These forms of expression should not trigger criminal punishment merely because they concern powerful institutions or controversial issues.

The proposed law, the council said, should specifically preserve reporting and analysis on corruption, misuse of authority, financial wrongdoing, environmental harm, public health, consumer protection, state spending and irregularities within public or private bodies.

Criticism directed at the government, public institutions, elected representatives, officials or government policy should likewise not be converted into a cybercrime allegation. Political analysis, irony and satire must remain protected forms of public expression.

The council objected to broad and uncertain wording, including phrases such as “demeaning the state.” It wants precise definitions for matters linked to state security and relations with foreign countries, warning that vague language can be used too widely against legitimate expression.

Court approval before action against journalists

The Editors’ Council proposed that authorities obtain prior judicial permission before arresting a journalist or taking steps tied directly to their professional work. The same requirement should apply to searches, seizure of equipment, access to digital devices or data, and surveillance.

In circumstances where urgent intervention cannot be avoided, the council said judicial approval or review should follow within 48 hours. Cases involving expression-related allegations should remain eligible for bail, rather than placing journalists at risk of detention before a court has fully assessed the complaint.

Such protections matter because digital tools are central to modern reporting. Phones, computers, messages, documents and stored files may contain confidential material, unpublished reporting and information connected to sources. Rules governing access to these materials therefore have implications beyond an individual case, including the ability of journalists to investigate matters of public concern.

Definitions should distinguish mistakes from deliberate deception

The council said inaccurate or incomplete information should not automatically lead to criminal liability. It urged lawmakers to distinguish clearly between false information, disinformation and rumours.

Information should not become a criminal matter simply because it is not yet verified or because supporting evidence is unavailable at the time it is published, the council said. This distinction is particularly significant in fast-moving situations, where journalists may report developing events while continuing to check details.

It also sought clear legal descriptions for offences and concepts including bullying, defamation, humiliation, conduct deemed insulting to the state, foreign relations, sexual harassment and sextortion. Precise definitions can help people understand what conduct is prohibited while reducing the possibility that broad provisions are applied inconsistently.

Transparency in takedown and blocking orders

When authorities seek to remove or block a report, post, video or other online material, the council wants the action to rest on an identifiable legal provision and a written explanation. Any order should state why the restriction is necessary.

Except during a genuine emergency, the person or organisation affected should be able to respond before content is taken down or access is restricted. The council also called for every such decision to be appealable and subject to judicial review.

If emergency blocking is used, a court should approve or review the measure within 48 hours. The organisation further recommended public disclosure of information about material removed or blocked under the law. Greater openness, it said, would allow citizens and media organisations to understand how powers affecting online speech are being used.

Defamation disputes should use existing media mechanisms

Online defamation should not be treated as a separate or more serious category of cybercrime, the council said. Complaints involving alleged defamation, publication of news, professional conduct, journalism ethics or media responsibility should, where suitable, be dealt with through the Bangladesh Press Council’s existing complaint and inquiry process rather than immediate criminal proceedings.

The council also opposed allowing mobile courts or executive authorities to decide disputes involving news publication, defamation, journalistic content or freedom of expression. Arrests, financial penalties, removals of content and other sanctions in these areas should remain under judicial oversight.

Individual reports should not lead to collective penalties

The Editors’ Council said a media organisation should not face closure, cancellation of registration or excessive punishment because of a single article or publication. Complaints arising from particular reports should be addressed through appropriate mechanisms, including the Press Council where relevant, instead of imposing collective consequences on an entire outlet.

The recommendations present a broader argument about balance. Cybercrime legislation can address serious online harms, but rules governing digital communication also shape the space in which journalists, citizens and institutions exchange information. The council’s proposed safeguards seek to ensure that protections against cyber offences do not weaken scrutiny, reporting or legitimate public debate.