Written by: Abdul Basit Alvi
Freedom of expression is widely regarded as a cornerstone of democratic societies, empowering individuals to voice their opinions, share ideas, and challenge authority. In principle, it is a fundamental right that supports other essential freedoms, such as the right to information and the right to participate in public discourse. However, like any fundamental right, it can be misused. When freedom of expression is exploited for harmful purposes—such as spreading disinformation, inciting hate speech, or manipulating vulnerable groups—it poses a serious threat to the ethical foundations of society.The rise of digital technologies and social media platforms has dramatically expanded the reach of freedom of expression. While this has enabled positive outcomes, such as connecting global communities and amplifying marginalized voices, it has also intensified the misuse of this right. Algorithms designed to maximize user engagement often prioritize sensational, polarizing, and emotionally charged content over more thoughtful or factual discourse. This creates a fertile ground for harmful speech and disinformation to spread. Social media platforms have become hotspots for the exploitation of freedom of expression. From political polarization to radicalization through echo chambers, these platforms offer malicious actors easy access to manipulate public opinion and spread dangerous ideologies. The ethical dilemma here is that, in their pursuit of profit and user engagement, these platforms often fail to take adequate action to curb the spread of harmful content. This neglect only strengthens those who seek to exploit freedom of expression for unethical purposes. The immoral misuse of this right does not occur in isolation; it has deep and lasting effects on both individuals and society. Misinformation can lead to poor decisions, erode trust in democratic institutions, and even endanger public health, as seen with vaccine misinformation or climate change denial. Hate speech and calls for violence can result in real-world harm, such as hate crimes, political unrest, and social division. Moreover, the decline of ethical standards in public discourse fosters a culture where truth, accountability, and civility are diminished. When harmful speech is allowed to thrive unchecked, it sets a dangerous precedent for future generations. It can create an environment where intolerance, division, and mistrust become normalized, ultimately undermining the very principles that freedom of expression is meant to safeguard. While freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it carries with it a moral responsibility. Those who use their voices—whether through the media, on social platforms, or in public forums—must recognize the potential harm their words can cause. Just as this freedom allows individuals to challenge authority and societal norms, it also requires individuals to consider the ethical impact of their speech. This is especially true in an era where misinformation and hate speech can spread rapidly. Platforms that enable the exchange of ideas, such as social media companies, have a crucial role in curbing the immoral abuse of freedom of expression. These platforms must be accountable for the content they host. Although the debate over balancing free speech with regulation continues, it is clear that platforms must be more proactive in preventing the spread of harmful content through better content moderation, algorithmic adjustments, or stricter policies. Governments also have a duty to protect freedom of expression while ensuring ethical conduct. This involves enacting laws that prevent the spread of hate speech and disinformation while safeguarding individuals’ rights to free thought and speech. The challenge lies in balancing the right to free speech with the need to protect the public from harm.Indeed, freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies, enabling individuals to voice dissent, criticize authority, and challenge government policies. However, when this right is abused to target one’s own country or military under the guise of “free speech,” the consequences can be destabilizing and detrimental to national security. While criticizing the state and military is a legitimate part of a healthy democracy, ethical and practical limits exist when such criticism becomes harmful. Criticism of national institutions, including the military, is essential for holding leaders accountable and ensuring civilian oversight of the armed forces. However, there is a fine line between constructive criticism and rhetoric that undermines national cohesion and morale. Attacking one’s own country and military through disinformation, exaggerated claims, or inflammatory rhetoric can have severe consequences for both the state and its citizens. When individuals or groups target their own military or nation in the name of free speech, they often exploit a legitimate right to create divisions and fuel distrust. These attacks can weaken national unity, erode public confidence in the military, and even embolden adversaries who may seek to exploit internal division for their own advantage. One of the most immediate consequences of targeting the military and nation under the guise of freedom of expression is the potential to undermine national unity. The armed forces are often regarded as a symbol of the nation’s strength and unity. When public discourse turns hostile toward the military, it can create an atmosphere of division, making it harder for citizens to come together in support of their country, particularly during times of crisis or conflict. Ongoing attacks on national institutions can erode the collective sense of identity and belonging, leaving society fractured and vulnerable. In nations facing internal strife or external threats, disunity can pose a serious danger. When citizens begin to see their military as an enemy within, it cultivates a culture of distrust and alienation, ultimately weakening the nation as a whole. The psychological impact of criticism can deeply affect the morale within the military ranks. Soldiers, who often make significant personal sacrifices for their country, may begin to feel disillusioned or demoralized if they perceive that their service is being attacked or vilified. Such criticism can lead to reduced morale, weakening the cohesion and effectiveness of the armed forces. When military personnel face public criticism or accusations, especially when unsupported by evidence, it can create a toxic environment within the military. This may diminish their willingness to serve, lower discipline, and ultimately undermine their operational readiness. Criticizing or undermining one’s own military under the banner of freedom of expression can also provide a strategic advantage to adversarial forces. While free speech is a fundamental right, foreign enemies can exploit internal divisions to their advantage. By amplifying criticism or spreading disinformation about a nation’s military, external forces may aim to create instability and weaken national defense. In times of international tension or conflict, public attacks on the military can embolden enemies who may view internal discord as an opportunity to exploit vulnerabilities or sway public opinion against their own government’s military efforts. This is particularly dangerous during wartime, when national unity and morale are crucial to defense success.The internet and social media have made it easier than ever for individuals to share opinions and criticisms. However, this also facilitates the unchecked spread of disinformation. False narratives about the military or government can be promoted by individuals or groups seeking to damage the nation’s reputation, sow division, or further political agendas. Disinformation campaigns targeting the military or government can severely undermine public trust in state institutions. Once trust is eroded, it becomes difficult for citizens to distinguish between legitimate criticism and malicious attacks, weakening the overall democratic system. In democracies, where public confidence is vital for effective governance, such attacks can increase political polarization, making it harder for government institutions to function properly. While freedom of expression protects individuals’ right to speak freely, there are legal and ethical limits, especially when speech jeopardizes national security or incites violence. Attacking one’s own military or government could cross into sedition, treason, or incitement to insurrection. In many countries, such actions are subject to prosecution under national security laws. Ethically, citizens and media outlets have a responsibility to ensure their criticisms are based on facts and aimed at improving the country, rather than diminishing its institutions for political gain. Constructive criticism promotes accountability, but reckless or malicious targeting can escalate tensions and harm the very institutions meant to protect the nation. Many countries recognize that unchecked or harmful expressions of dissent—especially when they target the integrity of the state, its military, or national security—can have far-reaching consequences. As a result, these nations have enacted laws and policies that limit certain forms of expression considered harmful, subversive, or destabilizing to national unity, security, and public order. Striking a balance between freedom of speech and national security can be complex, and some governments take decisive action against the misuse of this right when it is perceived as threatening the country’s stability or its armed forces. In Pakistan, there has been an increase in propaganda against the country and its military in recent days. The Pakistani government, along with the Pakistan Army, is working diligently to address the nation’s current challenges. In a significant diplomatic development, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko recently visited Islamabad, marking a noteworthy moment in the bilateral relations between Belarus and Pakistan. The visit emphasized a mutual interest in strengthening economic cooperation, defense collaboration, and political dialogue between the two countries. It also highlighted the changing dynamics of global geopolitics, as both nations seek to diversify their international partnerships amidst shifting alliances and challenges in the global landscape. President Lukashenko’s trip to Pakistan occurred against the backdrop of evolving international relations. As a traditional ally of Russia, Belarus has faced increasing international scrutiny due to its support for Moscow’s actions in Ukraine. With the West imposing harsh sanctions on Belarus, the country has increasingly turned to new economic partners, particularly in Asia, to navigate these sanctions and secure its geopolitical position. For Pakistan, the visit presented a strategic opportunity to strengthen ties with Eastern Europe, diversify its foreign relations, and explore economic opportunities in sectors like trade, agriculture, defense, and technology. A key focus of President Lukashenko’s visit was to enhance economic and trade relations between the two nations. Belarus, known for its advanced agricultural technologies and manufacturing expertise, views Pakistan as an important partner across various sectors. Belarus boasts a strong agricultural industry, particularly in machinery, fertilizers, and technology. During meetings with Pakistani officials, President Lukashenko emphasized the potential for Belarus to support Pakistan in modernizing its agricultural sector, a key component of the country’s food security and economic development. Both sides explored the possibility of increasing Belarusian agricultural machinery exports to Pakistan and collaborating on the production of high-quality fertilizers. While bilateral trade has traditionally been limited, the visit revealed significant opportunities for growth. The two countries signed several memorandums of understanding (MoUs) aimed at boosting trade, enhancing transportation links, and establishing joint ventures in sectors like pharmaceuticals, heavy industry, and IT services. Both nations expressed their goal of reaching $1 billion in bilateral trade, a notable increase from current levels.Defense cooperation was another major focus of President Lukashenko’s visit. Belarus and Pakistan have previously collaborated in defense, with Belarus supplying military equipment and technical expertise. The visit opened new avenues for cooperation in defense production and technological exchanges. As Pakistan seeks to diversify its defense sources, Belarus, with its well-established defense industry, is seen as a valuable partner for military hardware and defense technology. The two leaders discussed expanding joint defense manufacturing, training programs, and supplies of military equipment. With both countries facing security challenges, they also discussed enhancing cooperation on counterterrorism and regional security. Belarus expressed its willingness to assist Pakistan in tackling security concerns, particularly related to extremism and militancy. Both sides recognized the importance of regional stability and pledged to collaborate on shared security issues.In addition to economic and defense matters, the visit highlighted the importance of strengthening cultural and educational ties. Although Belarus and Pakistan have a history of friendly relations, mutual public perception remains limited. The visit emphasized the desire to increase people-to-people exchanges, particularly in areas like higher education, tourism, and cultural diplomacy. President Lukashenko proposed deeper collaboration between Belarusian and Pakistani universities, focusing on technical education, engineering, and science. Given Pakistan’s growing interest in technological innovation, especially in information technology and biotechnology, Belarus presents an attractive partner for academic collaboration and research sharing. While Belarus is not a major tourist destination for Pakistanis, discussions during the visit also touched on promoting tourism exchanges and cultural diplomacy. Belarus boasts a rich history, breathtaking landscapes, and a vibrant cultural heritage, all of which the Belarusian government views as an opportunity to showcase to Pakistani tourists. The visit also held significant geopolitical importance. For Belarus, strengthening its relationship with Pakistan is a key aspect of its broader strategy to diversify its foreign relations in light of Western sanctions and growing isolation due to its support of Russia in the Ukraine conflict. By engaging with Pakistan, which holds a strategically advantageous position in South Asia and the broader Islamic world, Belarus aims to forge new trade and political alliances. For Pakistan, the visit presented a valuable opportunity to engage with a European nation outside its traditional sphere of influence. It reflects Pakistan’s strategic intent to diversify its foreign policy, particularly as tensions with neighboring India and Afghanistan continue to shape its priorities. By strengthening ties with Belarus and other non-traditional partners, Pakistan aims to reduce its reliance on traditional allies. Given the importance of the visit, special security measures were required to ensure foolproof protection, and Pakistan is no stranger to deploying its armed forces to secure foreign delegations.In international diplomacy, ensuring the safety of foreign dignitaries and official venues is crucial for maintaining strong and productive relations between countries. While diplomats and government officials work to build ties, the protection of visiting officials often involves military forces. Many nations have relied on their military to safeguard foreign delegations, integrating national security with diplomatic protocol.In the United States, the military plays a key role in securing foreign dignitaries and heads of state. The U.S. Secret Service, alongside the Department of Defense, is responsible for securing visiting foreign leaders. For example, when a foreign leader visits Washington, D.C., the U.S. Army’s Military District of Washington (MDW) coordinates the security effort, deploying specialized units like the Army’s Presidential Security Detail and Military Police Corps to provide protection and manage crowds. The Secret Service works with other law enforcement agencies to ensure the physical safety of foreign visitors. High-level buildings like the White House, U.S. Capitol, and the State Department’s headquarters are often guarded by military personnel, including the U.S. Army Military Police and National Guard, to deter threats and respond to emergencies.Similarly, in China, the military plays an essential role in securing foreign diplomats and official state buildings. During official visits by foreign dignitaries to Beijing or other major cities in China, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) may be called upon to provide both security and military honors for the visiting leaders. For instance, when the President of the United States or other world leaders visit China, a meticulously planned deployment of PLA personnel typically accompanies the foreign dignitaries. PLA troops are often assigned to secure key locations such as the Great Hall of the People, where meetings between foreign and Chinese officials take place, as well as other significant sites, including the Chinese Embassy and consulates abroad. The People’s Armed Police (PAP), operating under the control of the Central Military Commission, plays a vital role in these security efforts. The PAP is primarily responsible for maintaining internal security, which includes safeguarding large public gatherings and official ceremonies involving foreign dignitaries. The Chinese government also relies on its military to secure important buildings, especially in symbolic locations in Beijing such as the Forbidden City, Tiananmen Square, and the Presidential Compound. These areas, where key political decisions are made, are guarded by both police and military personnel, with the military on standby for emergency interventions.In the United Kingdom, the British Army works alongside law enforcement agencies to provide security during foreign leaders’ official visits. When heads of state or other international leaders visit London, the British Army is often involved in both ceremonial and security roles. For example, during visits to Buckingham Palace or 10 Downing Street, British Army units ensure the safety of these locations and their personnel. The Household Cavalry also participates in state visits, offering ceremonial and security services, while the Royal Military Police ensures the safety of the visiting dignitaries. Additionally, for high-profile international events, the Specialist Protection Group (SPG) of the Metropolitan Police collaborates with military personnel to enhance security for both the British government and foreign delegates.In 2014, a political party, considered a major threat to Pakistan’s peace and development, planned a long march to Islamabad during the visit of the Chinese President. This party also orchestrated a similar attack on Islamabad on the exact dates of the Belarusian President’s visit. The protest march, which had no connection to the interests of the common people and was solely driven by political motives, was dispersed through a crackdown. To protect key government buildings and secure the visit of the foreign President, the government deployed the military in the capital. The same political party and its allies abroad began spreading propaganda against the military’s deployment. At a recent Formation Commanders’ Conference of the Pakistan Army, participants expressed concerns over the malicious propaganda regarding the army’s role in securing government buildings and ensuring a safe environment for foreign delegations. The two-day 84th Formation Commanders’ Conference, chaired by Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir, addressed these concerns, as reported by the Department of Public Relations (ISPR). In a statement released after the Formation Commanders’ Conference, the ISPR condemned the malicious propaganda being spread regarding the lawful deployment of the army in the capital to protect key government buildings and ensure a secure environment for foreign delegations visiting Pakistan. This coordinated and premeditated campaign is seen as part of a deliberate effort by certain political elements to create a rift between the people and Pakistan’s armed forces and institutions. The statement also emphasized that this failed attempt, supported by external forces, will not succeed. It added that the forum highlighted the necessity for the government to enact and enforce strict laws to prevent the reckless and unethical use of freedom of expression to spread lies, hatred, and division. There is also a pressing need to identify and hold accountable those who spread fake news for political and financial gains, the participants noted. The forum reaffirmed that the Pakistan Army is unwavering in its commitment to serving the nation and its people, confronting both external and internal threats impartially, without any political bias. It condemned any efforts to incite violence and create divisions among innocent people for personal gain.The same group also launched a social media campaign urging a boycott of products from companies managed by the Pakistan Army, but this call has been largely ignored by the people and investors. Recent statistics show that the stock prices of these companies continue to rise, with profits growing despite these malicious calls for a boycott.Regrettably, the state has been treating these malicious elements too leniently. The people of Pakistan demand decisive action against those spreading false and harmful propaganda against Pakistan and its military. The people of Pakistan stand firmly with the Army and reject any attempts to spread hatred against the true defenders of the country.
