Media is the reflection of human civilisation. The mass-media is leaving a mark on the chest of civilisation by highlighting the events that happen in our daily life. Media has a close relationship with democracy, good governance and development. Ignoring mass communication and free flow of information, national development and progress is nothing but fantasy. It is proven today that controlled and disciplined media is not at all good for any nation. Therefore, the mass-media has been recognised as the fourth pillar of the state.
 
The world-renowned political scientist and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, understood exactly how essential the media is for a civilized society. That's why he evaluated the media and said, 'If a society is asked to choose between the media and the government; the sublime choice of free-minded people will be the media’.
 
While running the state, he realised that the media is the mirror of the society. Countries where there will be less media barriers; that country will be more developed. If you suppressed the voice of the media; the plight of the country will increase. Therefore, the freedom of the media is ensured through the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to keep the media free from all influence, including the government. 

Not only that, but the First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no law shall be passed by the United States Congress abridging the freedom of the press. Enshrined in the Constitution, this law protects the US media. For nearly two and a half centuries, the First Amendment has guaranteed individual liberty in the United States. Anyone in the United States can criticize any government policy through any medium, including the media. They are also getting the benefits of it. The United States is gaining the status of the best democratic country in the world due to freedom of media and free speech. Democracies of the world still follow the US Constitution. Not only that, the United States has become the world's top superpower.

The article 39 of the constitution of Bangladesh guarantees freedom of thought and conscience as well as freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the media. But it is an unfortunate fact that this constitutional right has been transformed into a muddled document due to various overt and covert pressures and restrictions. Additionally, the restrictive digital law and the Cyber ​​Security Act have clamped down on free journalism. Such a situation is a serious obstacle to democratic practice and development.
 
In Bangladesh, the journalist community has been fiercely opposed to the anti-press freedom Digital Security Act since its inception. The journalists said, this law is in conflict with our constitution, in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared by the United Nations, in conflict with the spirit of the liberation war, in conflict with the values ​​of the liberation war and it is a great hindrance for freedom of speech as a whole. Not only the journalists, but also the conscious circles, various human rights organisations and even the United Nations have made statements demanding the cancellation of this black law against media and freedom of speech.
 
At one point, if the government starts using this law widely to suppress the voice of the citizens, UN human rights chief Volker Turk called on Bangladesh to immediately suspend the implementation of the digital security law.
 
Volker Turk said, "Digital security laws are being used across Bangladesh to arrest, harass and intimidate journalists and human rights defenders, and to stifle online criticism. I am very concerned about this issue.”
 
He further said, "I again call on the authorities to immediately suspend its use and to comprehensively reform its provisions to bring them into line with international human rights law. My office has already provided necessary feedback to assist in its revision.
 
The UN human rights chief said more than 2,000 cases have been filed under the law since it came into effect on October 1, 2018. Last, on March 29, 2023, Shamsuzzaman, a journalist working in the country's most circulated daily Prothom Alo, was arrested under this law. His house was searched and his laptop, phone and other equipment were seized. His bail application was also rejected.
 
A second case has been filed against Prothom Alo editor Motiur Rahman and a photographer. The case is based on their report on the cost-of-living crisis in Bangladesh.
 
He also said in the statement that a young man named Paritosh Sarkar has been jailed for five years under this Act for allegedly hurting religious sentiments in a Facebook post in February.
 
Volker Turk said, "My office has continuously raised concerns about various undefined provisions of the Digital Security Act." He said, "The government promised that there will be safeguards against arbitrary or excessive application of this law." But if arrests continue like this, that promise is not enough. This law now needs to be properly amended.
 
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a statement, also called for the formation of an impartial judicial panel to review all pending cases brought under the Digital Security Act with a view to freeing those accused of the Digital Security Act.
 
When the Digital Security Act was criticized around the world, it was repealed and another repressive law called the Cyber ​​Security Act was enacted. The implementing clauses of the Digital Security Act are inserted into the Cyber ​​Security Act. Everything else remained the same except for a few minor changes. Therefore, there has been no qualitative or significant change in the cyber security law except for the shell change. There are many elements in this law that undermine freedom of speech, right of expression, freedom of media. As a result, the expectations of journalists, human rights activists and the public were trampled to one side. On the other hand, basic human rights practices such as the right to free expression and freedom of the media have been criminalised again in many cases, which is extremely disappointing.
 
The reality is that the Digital Security Act has resorted to loopholes. Some provisions of the controversial Digital Security Act increased bail, but imposed unusual penalties. At least the journalists of Bangladesh do not have the ability to pay. As a result, journalists will have to go to jail if they cannot pay the fine. That is, 'that gourd is pumpkin.'
 
If we analyse the Cyber ​​Security Act, we will see that 18 of the total 60 sections in the Cyber ​​Security Act directly describe crimes and punishments. Apart from this, section 46(3) makes it an offense to violate the provisions of 'confidentiality of information obtained during investigation'. Sections 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31 and 32 in respect of punishment have reduced the period of curfew, not eliminated it altogether. The two sections provide for only fines instead of imprisonment. One of them is section 29, where a fine of up to 25 lakh taka has been mentioned as punishment for publication, dissemination, etc. of defamatory information. In the previous law, the punishment for this crime was imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to five lakh taka. The other is Section 30, which provides for fines up to Tk 25 lakh as punishment for e-transactions outside of legal authority. In the previous law, the punishment for this crime was imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of up to five lakh rupees. If you can't pay the fine here, you have to go to jail. That means the punishment is over.

Sections 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 33 and 34 of the Act keep both imprisonment and fine as before. Of the total 18 sections relating to crimes and offences, six have been made actionable and non-bailable and 12 have been made non-actionable and bailable. In the earlier Act, these numbers were 14 and five respectively. That is, non-enforceable and bailable clauses have been extended. Section 16 leaves both imprisonment and fine as punishments. In eight of these, the punishment was kept as before. In the remaining eight, the sentence was reduced. In the other two, only fines are imposed, excluding the provision of imprisonment; But the amount of penalty has been increased unusually. Among these two sections, section 29 was the subject of controversy from the beginning of the Digital Security Act.
 
Not to mention another thing, no new or old law has defined 'defamation'. Section 2(d) states that "defamation" in section 499 of Act 1860 shall be considered as "defamation" of this Act. That is, the definition of 'defamation' given in Section 499 of the Act is applicable to Section 29 of this Act. But under Section 500 of the IPC, the punishment for defamation is imprisonment up to two years or fine or both. The definition of offense is same, one in digital medium and other in other medium including print. Two years' imprisonment without fine - or only fine or both - a fine of Tk 25 lakh, whatever - is much more severe than that. Different platforms cannot lead to different or higher punishments for the same offence. Section 29 is completely unconstitutional in view of Articles 27, 31 and 35 of the Constitution. According to the rules, the defamation case has to be filed by the aggrieved person himself. Article 29 is a curse for media workers. Publication of defamatory information on website or any electronic format is liable to be charged under this section. Journalists publish a lot of news related to public interest, which goes against someone. Journalism can no longer be done if you start suing for defamation.
 
It is true that many crimes and criminals have come to light in this country based on newspaper reports. There is also a system of trial and punishment. The role of investigative reporting in preventing major crimes including bribery, corruption, money and human trafficking and ensuring good governance is undeniable. Recently, investigative reports of former police chief Benazir Ahmad and Revenue Board officer Matiur Rahman's misuse of power to acquire wealth have been published in the media. These sensational reports have created a stir around the world. Section 29 of the Cyber ​​Security Act also allows them to sue for defamation. They are so rich and influential that it will not be possible for an honest journalist to deal with them. The reality is that no journalist will be able to perform his professional duties properly due to the fear of punishment of up to 25 lakh rupees. Because no one wants to go to jail or pay a fine of 25 rupees because of a report. It will reduce investigative reports, the violence of corrupt people will increase.
 
Another major obstacle for independent media is Section 17 of the Act. According to Clause 2(a) of this section, illegal access to 'critical information infrastructure' is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years- or a fine not exceeding 25 lakh taka- or both - and for causing damage or destruction or invalidation by illegal access as per Clause 2(b). or attempt to do so is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six years- or a fine not exceeding one crore rupees- or both. Already, 29 government institutions have been declared as 'Critical Information Infrastructure' on September 21 last year. As a result, the professional protection of investigative journalists will be in doubt.
 
Recently, Bangladesh Bank has banned journalists from entering. As a result, a distance has been created between the bank authorities and the journalists. In this case, if a journalist prints any news of irregularities, corruption through a secret source and the bank authorities file a case alleging illegal access to important information infrastructure, then even if the report is true, that reporter will be jailed for up to three years. - or not more than 25 lakhs should be paid in cash - or both. Corruption reports should be taken through secret sources. No one will give the information of corruption in public. Due to this law, the freedom of the press will be threatened in the relevant field. The major drawback is that the list of 'Critical Information Infrastructure' has been announced but no clear guidelines have been given. There is no alternative to ensuring the free flow of information for the development of a free media. Not only journalists, but also people's right to get free and unbiased information has been undermined
 
Not to mention a real experience in this regard. Recently, I visited the Rohingya camp in Cox's Bazar to gather information about the powerful arms, drug and human trafficking networks that have developed around them. At first no one agreed to give any information. Later, some agreed to provide information on the condition that they would not be named, photographed or recorded.

Section 25 of the Cyber ​​Security Act makes it an offense to transmit, publish or disseminate offensive, false or intimidating information. Section 28 makes it an offense to publish, propagate anything with the intention of inciting or hurting religious values ​​or sentiments. Section 31 makes it an offense to publish or broadcast or cause anything which creates enmity, hatred or hatred between different classes or communities or destroys communal harmony or creates disorder or causes or is likely to cause deterioration of law and order. Many complex and interpretive words are used in describing the respective offenses in these three clauses. They will not be easily understood by common citizens due to lack of proper clarification or definition. On the other hand, the punishment for 'assistance in commission of crime' mentioned in Section 34 is not defined. Even the definition of 'defamation' as described in Section 107 of the Act has not been mentioned here. Clear explanations and definitions were needed to remove these ambiguities, errors and inconsistencies. At least that would have made the law simpler for the citizens. Therefore, there is scope for misuse of law in this case as well. The danger of harassing the citizens by imposing arbitrary definitions or interpretations is obvious.
 
The most important and worrying thing is section 42 of the Act. This section empowers the police to search, seize and arrest without warrant. According to this law, the police can search the house or office, body or personal devices etc. of any person on the suspect list and arrest him. Whether the offense in question is actionable or non-actionable or whether an offense has been committed at all is not to be seen. And for this, no police warrant or court permission will be required. The law has given him unfettered access. Here lies the question of fear and apprehension. There is considerable danger that Article 42 will become a tool of repression. Another special aspect is that even if the Digital Security Act is repealed, all the proceedings or cases or appeals taken under that Act under Section 59 will continue as if they were initiated under the Cyber ​​Security Act. Therefore, those who were harassed, oppressed, arrested or sued under the previous law, even though the law was repealed, their case continued.
 
About this law journalist leader Manjurul Ahsan Bulbul said, 'Cyber ​​security law: new in form, same dance as before.' Therefore, the editorial board, various organisations of journalists, various human rights organizations, TIB have asked for the repeal and amendment of this law against the freedom of the media.
 
The United Nations has expressed disappointment that the Bangladesh government has repealed the Digital Security Act (DSA) and enacted another black law called the Cyber ​​Security Act. In a statement, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression also expressed dismay at the proposed cybersecurity law, which contained several provisions of the DSA's "serious deficiencies" with international law. Reporter Irene Khan informed the matter in a letter to Bangladesh government on August 28 last year.
 
In the letter, Irene Khan made several observations and recommendations to bring the proposed Cyber ​​Security Act into line with international law and engage constructively with the Bangladesh government on the issue. He wrote, earlier as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, various member states of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the Special Process of the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Special Rapporteur, he expressed many concerns about the digital security law.
 
In June last year, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights sent a technical note to the Bangladesh government. He said that many of the points in the note were not included in the draft Cyber ​​Security Act.
 
The United Nations Special Rapporteur made three comments on the draft Cyber ​​Security Act. First of all, he pointed out that the draft law contains vague and broad provisions, through which even legitimate expression of opinion can be considered a crime.
 
These provisions come as a new form of Digital Security Act. These are in conflict with international human rights law. They have been applied to journalists, human rights activists. As a result it has a negative impact on them. Freedom of the media is under attack. Long-term imprisonment and death have also occurred.
 
In a second comment, the UN Special Rapporteur said the penalties in the draft law were disproportionately harsh. The government has sought to reduce or eliminate the maximum sentence in some cases and increase bail in some cases. In some cases, the provision of large sums of money has been made in lieu of imprisonment. The proposed changes would not be so significant as to be meaningful.
 
In a third comment on the draft cyber security law, the Special Rapporteur said the proposed law gives extensive powers to telecommunications regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies.
 
Special Rapporteur Irene Khan called for the proposed law to be brought into line with international standards of law so that it can truly be considered a significant step towards freedom of expression. He hopes the government will amend the proposed law before introducing it in Parliament. But the government did not respond to this call and passed it in Parliament on September 13 last year.
 
The United Nations Special Rapporteur has highlighted Bangladesh's obligation to respect freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). He said that the Bangladesh government under the leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina signed the agreement on September 6, 2000.
 
Section 21 of the proposed Cyber ​​Security Act makes it an offense to carry out propaganda about the Liberation War, the spirit of the Liberation War, the Father of the Nation, the National Anthem or the National Flag. According to the UN Committee, criticism of state authorities, including heads of state, and opinions about state flags, national symbols or historical events are legitimate expressions protected by international law.
 
The UN Special Rapporteur fears that the breadth and vagueness of the scope of this section of the offense may impose illegal restrictions on political expression.
 
Section 28 of the proposed Act makes it a crime to hurt religious sentiments or values ​​and Section 31 to create hatred, hatred or enmity between different communities or classes. The UN Special Rapporteur said that Article 28 is not compatible with international law. That clause should be deleted. And Article 31 should be harmonized with Article 20(2) of the ICCPR.
 
Section 25 of the Digital Security Act (regarding offensive, false and threatening data) and Section 29 on criminal defamation have been used to detain critics of the Bangladesh government, the letter said. The Special Rapporteur noted that the presence of these in the Cyber ​​Security Act is also troubling.
 
Regarding cyber terrorism, section 27 of the Digital Security Act, cyber terrorism has also been included in the draft Cyber ​​Security Act. The Special Rapporteur said the definition of cyber terrorism is too detailed and vague. No element of the international definition of terrorism is mentioned therein. The letter suggested adopting the international definition of terrorism as recommended by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
 
According to the UN Special Rapporteur, the proposed Cyber ​​Security Act not only adds to the long list of offenses contained in the Digital Security Act, but also adds penalties. The Special Rapporteur called on the Bangladesh government to reduce the number of crimes and the level of punishment.
 
Regarding the powers of regulatory and law enforcement authorities, Section 8 of the draft law empowers the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (BTRC) to restrict access to websites that threaten digital security or delete data. This should be consistent with international human rights law obligations.
 
The Special Rapporteur recommended independent judicial oversight of searches, seizures and arrests by law enforcement officers in the light of experience with the Digital Security Act. He also expressed his interest in meeting with the Bangladesh government on the proposed law. But the government did not respond. These recommendations of the United Nations seem to me very logical.
 
According to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without interference. These rights are mentioned in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They are fully recognized in Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Every citizen is guaranteed freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press. But this freedom becomes meaningless if the collection and publication or dissemination of information has to be caught in the net of law and the sword of painful punishment hangs over the head. The government has essentially done just that by enacting the Cyber ​​Security Act.
 
Not only that, the criminal law and criminal justice system have now become an effective tool for punishing anti-government and government critics. Along with political workers, journalists are also being victimized by this tool. Rozina Islam, the senior journalist of Prothom Alo, became a shameful victim of this tool. Government officials have also found a new tool called the Official Secrets Act. Rozina Islam was arrested under this hundred-year-old law. The hundred-year-old Official Secrets Act was enacted by then rulers to suppress India's Swadeshi movement during the colonial era. Journalist organizations claim that the Bangladesh government is using this hundred-year-old law against journalists to deprive the people of knowing the truth.
 
There are at least 14 laws in the country that can discipline journalists. Older laws include defamation, official secrecy, and contempt of court laws. New Laws ICT Act, Digital Security, Media Act, Data Protection Law, OTT. Although the names of these laws are different, the extent of their application, in turn, creates barriers to expression. Opportunity to enforce against journalists. They are barriers to creative work. State agencies are monitoring journalists with stealth technology and tracking devices and it has reached intolerable and dangerous levels. The question is, why so many laws against free expression?
 
Daily Star editor Mahfuz Anam wrote in an article about this, "Many laws are already in place in the country to control the media, or to suppress it; however, the rush to pass new laws, one might think that the sectors that the government It is thought that journalists need to be stopped, first of all they need to be 'suspended'.
 
By using these rules, journalist Shafiq Rehman, Shahidul Islam, photojournalist Shahidul Islam Kajal, president of BFUZ, veteran journalist Ruhul Amin Gazi, advisory editor of The New Nation Barrister Mainul Hossain, Dhaka Times editor Arifur Rahman Dolan, Top News editor Ekramul Haque, Many journalists including senior journalist Sayadat Hossain were arrested. The aged editor of Dainik Sangram, Abul Asad, was dragged out of the office by the cadres of the government party while on duty, not only subjected to inhuman torture, but also handed over to the police. The police did not catch the terrorists but put Abul Asad in the opposite jail and remanded him after remand and tortured him inhumanely. Writer. Mushtaq Ahmad died in Kashimpur jail in police custody after his arrest under the Digital Security Act.
 
More than 60 journalists have been killed during the current government. Numerous media including Dainik Amar Desh, Dainik Dinkal, Channel One, Digant Television, Islamic Television, CSB have been shut down. Many journalists have become unemployed due to the closure of these media. Again, many journalists are being unfairly dismissed from different media because of their dissenting opinion.
 
The editor Shafiq Rehman, Amar Desh editor Mahmudur Rahman, Oli Ullah Noman, Kazi Jasin, Saleh Shibli, Shamsul Alam Liton, Kanak Sarwar, Farid Alam, Mahbubur Rahman, Kafi Kamal, Mahmudul Islam Liton, Manjurul Islam, Deen Islam, fell under the fire of the government. Many editors and journalists including Azhar Mahmud, Ilyas Hossain had to migrate.
 
According to the human rights organization Human Rights Support Society (HRSS), 365 journalists were tortured and harassed in Bangladesh last year. Two people were killed. Apart from this, a case has been filed against 55 journalists. 11 people were arrested. They published the information based on the news published in 12 national media of the country and the data of HRSS's data investigation unit.
 
And the Law and Arbitration Center says that in 2023, 290 journalists have faced various forms of torture, harassment, threats and obstacles in their professional work. At least 78 journalists were attacked while performing their professional duties. In addition, 22 journalists were subjected to harassment and obstruction during the performance of professional duties by government officials.
 
According to RSF, Bangladesh's Digital Security Act or DSA is one of the toughest laws in the world for journalists. The Act authorizes arrests or searches without a warrant and violates the confidentiality of a journalist's source for any reason'.
 
'In such a legal environment, editors routinely censor themselves,' says RSF.
 
In the last five years, 451 journalists have been booked under the Digital Security Act (DSA) in Bangladesh. 97 people have been arrested. Dr. Ali Riyaz, distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University in the United States, presented such information in his research paper titled 'The Ordeal: Five Years of Digital Security Law' last Tuesday. He said in this research paper presented through the webinar, 'Among them, 255 journalists have been sued for their reports. And among the 97 journalists arrested, 50 are local journalists (district and upazila level).'
 
The mystery of journalist couple Sagar-Rooney's murder has not been revealed even after 12 years. In 12 years, the concerned could not or did not submit the investigation report even after being given time by the court 111 times. But the then Home Minister Sahara Khatun assured that Sagar-Runi's killers would be arrested within 48 hours. We firmly believe that if the government was sincere, there would have been justice for this sensational murder.
 
Bangladeshi media is currently going through a period of extreme crisis. Such a terrible dark time came again during the Independence Northern government. At that time only four newspapers were under government control and all newspapers were closed. Many journalists had to be unemployed. Many editors and journalists have to go to jail because of thunko. Now there is a lot of media, but there is no freedom of media.
 
We are in the most extreme crisis with freedom of speech. People now have to speak very carefully as freedom of speech is curtailed. People are imposing their own control due to circumstances. Whether writing something or saying something goes against the government, whether the speech somehow goes against the ministers, whether the government goes against the party MPs, whether it goes against Sheikh Mujib's family, whether it goes against the leader of the government party, that thought has now become a matter of great concern.
 
But the main feature of a democratic state is freedom of speech. Thus Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen said: 'Freedom of speech is actually an important part of human freedom. Being able to talk to others, the ability to listen to others (opinions); It is the central reason we are valuable as human beings.'
 
It is unfortunate that this understanding has not been transmitted to our ruling class. In Bangladesh, the line of criticism has been drawn so much that the name of a few people cannot be forgotten during the criticism. Their criticism means that they will have to arrest immediately.
 
Daily Star editor Mahfuz Anam said in an interview with Deutsche Welle: 'There are many issues that I am not writing about. Many issues should be written. Like the last election. Smaller selections should also be written about. I am not writing. I should say I can't write even though I want to.'
 
How could he write? More than 80 cases have been filed against Mahfuz Anam during the current government. Among them, 21 cases of sedition. In 51 of the defamation cases, defamation of Tk 122 thousand 470 crore 55 lakh has been claimed. Similarly, several cases are pending against Matiur Rahman Chowdhury. After filing a murder case against Prothom Alo editor Matiur Rahman, he has stopped speaking and writing a lot.
 
After the January 5 elections, the government has cracked down on freedom of speech in an unprecedented manner. Previous governments used to reduce or stop advertising in 'Critic' newspapers. During this government, it was seen that in addition to the government advertisements in the two main newspapers of the country, the advertisements of telephone companies, banks and universities were also stopped. This was done under secret government orders. The most terrible thing is to shut down dissenting newspapers on various pretexts. Dainik Amar Desh newspaper was quite popular. Circulation was high. The newspaper was closed because it criticized the government. The editor was put in jail and brutally tortured on remand after remand. When he went to appear in the court, the cadres appointed by the government spilled his blood in the court premises. He had to leave the country because he was unable to live!
 
No one dares to open up on TV talk shows. Those who dare to speak the truth are no longer invited to talk shows. At one time, NewAge editor Nurul Kabir, Dhaka University teacher Asif Nazrul were storming the talk show. Now they are no longer seen on talk shows. Meaning they are not called. Not only the journalists of Bangladesh but also the conscience of the world is protesting against the government's suppression of freedom of speech. But the government is not paying attention to it.
 
The State Department of the United States Government has expressed concern over violations of media and press freedom in Bangladesh, including the implementation of the Digital Security Act on July 20, 2021. State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters, 'The government of Bangladesh is aggressively enforcing digital security laws. We urge the Bangladesh government to protect the freedom of expression of everyone including journalists. Those arrested under the Digital Security Act should be ensured fair trial.'
 
The United Kingdom Government's Human Rights and Democracy Report-2020 states: Media freedom in Bangladesh is under pressure. On the other hand, political freedom has also been narrowed. Freedom of expression is being interfered with by using the Digital Security Act to prevent criticism of the Bangladesh government's actions in the Corona epidemic.'
 
The freedom of the media is lagging behind, and now it is at the bottom among the countries of South Asia. The Awami League government has been in power for four consecutive terms after the December 29, 2008 elections. In these 15 years, Bangladesh has dropped 44 steps in the free media index!
 
The media is said to be the watchdog of the state and government. What is going wrong, the media shows the government. The fourth part of the state is being crippled today for what interest? Interference with or control of free thought and speech by law is a sign of a fascist state. We think that if an environment of open minded speech or free thinking is not created, it can be harmful to the government and the state.
 
It is a proven fact today that democracy and freedom of media complement each other. Without democracy, there is no freedom of media. Again, without freedom of media, democracy is not complete. So freedom of media is essential for democracy.
 
If we look at the Free Press Index of 2024, it can be seen that Bangladesh is followed by Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Iraq, Egypt, Myanmar, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan. There is no democracy in these countries. So, to ensure the freedom of the media, democracy must be established first. Freedom of expression must be ensured. All anti-media freedom laws should be repealed. Journalists should be protected. A culture of fear has been created in Bangladesh, it must be removed. But first of all democracy should be brought back.
 
 
The writer is Secretary General, Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists and Member Secretary, Bangladesh Combined Professional Council