A comparative analysis and evaluation of two positions/oppositions to the Digital Security act,2018. One position call for the abolition of the law and another for amendment to specific clause. What are the relative strengths of each positions? How do you evaluate those positions?

Section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Authority to remove or block information and data: 

(1) If the director general is satisfied that something published or disseminated on a digital platform falling within his domain may pose a threat to digital security, he may request the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) to remove or block the information or data in question, or, in specific cases, to block the platform in question entirely.

(2) If it becomes apparent to law enforcement agencies that something published and disseminated through any digital device or digital medium has the potential to cause disunity in the country, disrupt economic activities and national security, undermine national defense, harm religious values, incite communal hatred or bad feelings, or create a law and order situation, the law enforcement agencies may request that the BTRC remove or block the content in question from the internet.

(3) After receiving such requests, the BTRC will notify the government and will take urgent measures to remove or prohibit the material from the internet.

Comment from the Editors' Council:

There are two concerns to be concerned about in this situation: the authority of the director general and the authority of law enforcement authorities. The ability to censor information will strike at the core of the publishing industry, whether in print or online. In certain cases, reports may be restricted or photographs seized, which may result in the suspension or cancellation of any media outlet.

 Section 25.

When someone uses a website or a digital device to (a) distribute information or data that is attacking or intimidating in nature, they are violating the law; and when someone publishes or distributes information despite knowing that it is false in order to irritate, humiliate, embarrass or discredit another person they are violating the law.

It is a crime if someone harms the image and reputation of a state, causes confusion, or, in the same vein, publishes and distributes fully or partially distorted information or data despite knowing that it is false, and if anyone assists in such actions, then all of the individual's actions will be considered crimes as a whole.

Comment from the Editors' Council:

This will have a direct impact on any investigative reporting in the media going forward. Such reports are often concerning some abnormalities that have occurred at the hands of organizations or individuals. In order to scare journalists and media organizations, corrupt individuals would attempt to block the publishing of such tales by claiming that the reports are a result of an assault or intimidation on their person or property. Actually, any story of this kind may be classified as falling into one or more of the categories listed above and can be used to harass the media.

Any investigative report that shows corruption involving a person or an organization is certain to "irritate," "embarrass," or "humiliate" someone at some point in the investigation. As a result of this rule, it will be difficult to disclose any unfavorable information about a corrupt official. Newspapers will be reduced to becoming public relations firms as a result of this. Even the most elementary investigative journalism will become difficult to produce.

Specifically, the second portion of this clause refers to "promoting misunderstanding." It is possible that "confusion" will be used as a tool of media harassment if the definition of the term is not specified. What seems to be puzzling to one person may not appear to be confusing to another. This will almost certainly open up a new front in the media's intimidation campaign.

On the other hand, what exactly constitutes "damage the image/reputation" of the government? Recently, we published an article exposing corruption in the financial industry, which was perpetrated by unethical corporate groups. We've already reported that the banking industry is in a state of turmoil. Is it considered "destroying the image/reputation" of a company? Corruption in law enforcement organizations has been brought to our attention. Custodial deaths, disappearances, and extrajudicial executions are all topics we've covered in the past. If someone believes that all of these reports are harming the "image" of the state, then this legislation allows for the punishment of journalists and newspapers for publishing such reports, since all publications have websites, which makes this a legal option.

Step-by-step explanation

The Digital Security Act, 2018 is a piece of legislation pertaining to digital security in Bangladesh. With this legislation, the government hopes to prohibit the propagation of racism, sectarianism, extremism, terrorist propaganda, and hate towards religious or ethnic minorities via social media, print media, or any other kind of electronic communication. Any material on the internet or in other media that the government deems to be pornographic or otherwise objectionable may be subject to fines or jail sentences of varying durations, depending on the circumstances. It is a contentious piece of legislation.

as well as concerns about how some sections of the legislation might be used to stifle political opposition against the government owing to the fact that they are imprecise and unclear, subject to interpretation, or prone to misuse

Some journalists, activists, and criminals have been sued and arrested as a result of this statute.