Subscribe

Pakistan bans 'obscene' text messages

Kathryn McConnachie
By Kathryn McConnachie, Digital Media Editor at ITWeb.
Johannesburg, 21 Nov 2011

Today marks the deadline for Pakistan's cellular operators to implement the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority's (PTA's) ban on “obscene” text messages.

The PTA handed over a list of more than 1 600 banned words and phrases to the country's operators on 14 November, giving them seven days to block any offending content.

The ban requires the telecoms operators to filter and block offending text messages before they are sent to the intended recipient.

The list, issued in both English and Urdu, includes expletives, slang and what the PTA deems “indecent language”. Some of the words included in the ban are “Jesus Christ”, “athlete's foot”, “period”, “tampon”, “quickie”, “idiot”, “go to hell”, “monkey crotch”, “love pistol”, “flatulence” and “no sex”.

The list has some people scratching their heads, as apart from the usual swear words, even the words “deposit” and “headlights” have found their way onto the banned list.

'Obnoxious communication'

The Guardian reports that, while Pakistan's constitution guarantees free speech, the regulator told mobile phone companies that such freedom was "not unrestricted" under court rulings.

Furthermore, the PTA said it had obligations under its licences to prevent "obnoxious communication". The PTA has requested that the operators submit monthly reports on the number of banned texts.

Spokesperson for the PTA Mohammad Younis says the banned list is a result of numerous meetings and consultations after consumers reportedly complained of receiving offensive text messages. According to Younis, the list is not final and the PTA will continue to add to it.

Twitter tirade

The PTA's attempt to enforce a “moral and clean” society has been met with discontent on the social Web. The Twitter hashtag #PTAbannedlist has been used by people to express their concerns and outrage, and mostly to poke fun at the PTA:

One user commented: “Maybe all Pakistanis should keep sending expletive-filled text msgs every 10 minutes and wait for the networks to collapse.” (sic)

Other tweets include: “It occurred to me that the #PTABannedList was compiled using existing SMSes - making it an invaluable historical documentation of our times.”

“A severe blow to basic human right of free speech. 'Obscene' text message ban starts today. #Pakistan #PTAbannedlist”

“We should all just memorize the #PTABannedList numbers & then sms those numbers instead of the words! .. 392 YOU PTA!”

“BREAKING: The #PTABannedList is actually a list of names the chairman of PTA was known by in his school days and his neighbourhood.”

“I think the #PTAbannedlist should be taken as a challenge. Let this be the dawn for new era of exciting swear words and obscenities.”

The PTA is not new to nanny-state tactics, and previously blocked Web sites it deemed pornographic or offensive to Islam. Facebook was blocked for two weeks in May 2010 as a result of controversy surrounding a competition to draw Prophet Mohammed. YouTube was also briefly banned in February 2008.

Get real

Local new media lawyer Paul Jacobson says the PTA's ban seems “ridiculous” given the restrictions' scope.

“I also have my doubts how effective policing this will be but that really depends on the extent to which users can circumvent the blocking systems,” says Jacobson.

In terms of privacy and freedom of expression, Jacobson says the ban could impact on South African's rights where they are messaging Pakistanis affected by the ban, as such messages would presumably be filtered too.

“I'm not sure how much more this ban will impact on users' privacy rights as even in SA, telecoms providers are required to conduct a level of monitoring by current legislation.

“When it comes to free expression, the right isn't unlimited here in SA although I suspect a ban like this wouldn't be supported by our courts. Even sexual expression may be protected provided it doesn't touch on issues like child porn, or take the form of unprotected forms of expression listed in the Bill of Rights.

“Just because we don't like how someone expresses themselves or what the content of their expression is, doesn't necessarily mean it should be outlawed,” concludes Jacobson.

Share