Month: August 2013

Posted on

21,000 websites blocked by PTA, so far

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has so far blocked over 21,000 websites containing blasphemous material and while the process is still continuing a report will be sent to the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Monday to decide if the YouTube should be reopened.

After verifying the strength of the response mechanism placed by the PTA to handle blasphemous material on the Internet next week, the government will forward the issue of re-opening of YouTube to the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC), it is learnt.

“We are actively pursuing this sensitive issue to ensure the blockage of viewership of blasphemous film “Innocence of Muslim” in Pakistan, but we want to ensure placing of an effective system under the PTA to handle complaints of its re-loading on the YouTube,” Minister of State for Information Technology, Anusha Rehman, said when The News sought her comments on Friday.

To another query about grey trafficking monitoring system, the minister said after the ICH policy, the LDI operators in 2012 contributed Rs270 million towards the monitoring of grey trafficking which will have interface to PTA and this system would be in place by September 15.

However, the sources said the PTA authorities would brief the minister of state on the strength of their complaint handling mechanism on coming Monday.

The PTA, the sources said, replied back to an official communication sent out by the Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT) about response mechanism on complaints in case of reloading of blasphemous film or pornography, stating that the PTA had set up a toll-free number and complaint email ([email protected]) processed by the Services Division of PTA where blasphemous URLs can be sent.

The MoIT had given a three-day deadline to the PTA to apprise them about complaint handling mechanism after which this issue will be forwarded to the IMC for decision.

Keeping in view the sensitivity of the issue, the letter states that a comprehensive mechanism was already in place whereby upon receipt of complaints all obnoxious content relating to blasphemous or pornographic is blocked.

Sources in the PTA said that this complaint cell was established in 2006 and in 2009 Complaint Management System was put in place which was also shared with cellular companies at that time.

Taking decisions on blocking of content does not fall under the jurisdiction of PTA, as it is the domain of IMC (Inter-Ministerial Committee) which comprises different stakeholders including the intelligence agencies under the chairmanship of Federal Secretary MoIT.

However, the sources in MoIT say an effective enforcement on the directives of PTA was a problematic area and they cited different examples such as the regulator remained unable to enforce its directive on spam filters.

They said the PTA also remained unable to install filters in accordance with the policy directive of MoIT. “There is need to understand the difference between the mandate of the ministry and regulator, as the PTA is not under the direct control of MoIT,” said the official sources.

The sources also pointed out that there were some top guns who in official briefing claimed that there were eight million URLs having blasphemous film and it was not possible for them to clean such a massive URLs. They had argued that only 0.5 million URLs could be blocked in Pakistan.But after the PML-N took the reins of power, the minister of state for IT formed a 14-member committee which identified only 4,000 URLs.

The News

Posted on

YouTube ban should continue

Social media website You Tube was banned in Pakistan in September 2012 after a blasphemous video titled “Innocence of Muslims” was uploaded on it which caused mass scale protests/riots leading to loss of life/property across the Muslim world and the operator of the popular webpage Google, refused to remove it. This was not the first offense of the website, which in 2008 had also hurt the sensitivities of Muslims across the globe by uploading a short film by Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders, which explored links between Islam and terrorism. Then too Pakistan had blocked YouTube in response to street-wide demonstrations, but later lifted the ban. A couple of years earlier, the same social media website had organized a competition on the social media desecrating the respected persona of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (MPBUH). This activity had cause great mental agony to millions of Muslims all over the globe.

A year on, there have been mixed reaction to the ban. Most Pakistanis initially agreed with the ban as the blasphemous content was offensive and insensitive. However, as the ban persisted, some groups have voiced concern over continued ban. With the change in government this June, petitions were made to the new Prime Minister to lift ban. Student bodies and some members of the academia have lobbied that countries like Pakistan who straddle in lower echelons of education empowerment of its citizens have everything to gain from massive free online education. They have pleaded that present moribund state of education can be partly alleviated if online education is utilized effectively and intelligently. Their logic is that at present, Pakistan cannot do so because of a state sponsored ban on sites like You Tube, which are at the helm of distributing this material online. The reasoning is sound but government has to see the broader picture.

Last week, the State Minister for Information Technology, Anusha Rehman, announced that the ban on YouTube would be removed in the coming few days after the sitting of Inter-Ministerial Committee. She disclosed that Pakistan is testing URL filters, which will enable it to selectively block controversial content instead of banning the entire service. The technology is reportedly provided by Pakistan Telecommunication Company, which will offer the services to the government for a year and will charge for the service after this duration. The URL filters are also said to have been tested, blocking a list of 4,000 objectionable URLs. Clarifying that the decision could not be made by her Ministry alone, she declared that the final decision to lift the ban would be made by the Inter-Ministerial Committee, which will also be responsible for preparing the list of blocked URLs, which will be handed over to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.

The new government, which is still less than ninety days old and under normal circumstances, would have been enjoying the honeymoon period, where the opposition and media give them a fair chance before criticizing them harshly. Unfortunately, from day one, there has been an onslaught of terror attacks and numerous other developments, which have left the new incumbents in the corridors of power shell shocked. Running helter-skelter to find solutions, the government of Mian Nawaz Sharif has been forced to make judgmental errors by acting in haste. The crucial decision of lifting the ban on You Tube must also be thought through, lest a hurriedly taken pronouncement may cause more damage and regret.

The decision of blocking YouTube was also in line with the Honorable Supreme Court directives/observations, orders of the Prime Minister and in the larger national interest. This scribe recommends that if at all the ban is to be lifted, Google must first apologize to the Muslims for causing them mental anguish. It should remove all clippings of the movie “Innocence of Muslims” and “The Innocent Prophet” from YouTube and promise to respect the emotions of the Muslim Ummah. Essentially, Google, and YouTube should get registered with PTA for being available in Pakistan and it should pay taxes. It has been observed that social media websites are earning tremendous revenue from Pakistan thus Federal Board of Revenue should take action against those search engines/ social media websites who are earning from Pakistan but evading local taxes.

It is also important that Google should respect the legal clauses of Pakistan and before being permitted to operate in Pakistan, it should enter into formal agreements with the relevant Ministry for legalizing its services. Respecting the need of research scholars, the academia and student body, favorable agreements may be signed with Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other Social Media Networking Sites but these must include Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and automatic filtering software. In order to safeguard the mental health of Pakistan by discouraging pornography and block anti state content, especially those that incite separatism, hatred against specific sects/minorities or the armed forces of Pakistan, the Government should implement physical/electronic filtering of internet data like that adopted by a number of other countries, which the State Minister for I/T was alluding to. Simultaneously, OIC should take up a case with UN for drafting a resolution not allowing any person to misuse the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) name and make movies / caricatures on him, Umhat-ul-Momineen RA, Khulfa-e-Rashideen RA and Sahaba. Necessary legislation as was carried out by Jews on laws related to denial of Holocaust should be adopted. The OIC should setup central or regional hubs of filtering units. OIC and Pakistan should ensure that evil attacks on Islam do not occur both internally and externally.

It would also be prudent to develop Pakistan based equivalent of YouTube to benefit the public. Own versions of Search engines, Video sharing platforms and Networking sites be designed like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc. In light of the above suggestions, perhaps further anguish to the faithful can be avoided by the machination of Islam bashers and those suffering from Islamophobia while enemies of the state can be kept at bay from misusing the social media for their nefarious designs.

Pakistan Observer

Posted on

Why filtering the internet is a bad idea

The writer is one of the directors at Bolo Bhi and has previously worked at Newsline
It is not about YouTube, just like it was never about Facebook in 2010. The issue was never limited to the reopening of particular platforms which were accessed through the use of proxies by Pakistanis despite the bans in place. The issue has always been of governance, of mandates and of ad-hoc, of non-transparent decision-making that lacks accountability.

The process for blocking — on paper at least — is as follows. The Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Evaluation of Websites (IMCEW) convenes to reach a decision. This decision is communicated as a directive by the Ministry of Information, Technology and Telecom (MoITT) to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). The PTA issues orders to internet service providers (ISPs) and it is at the ISP level that the blocking takes place. The IMCEW and the MoITT are responsible for policymaking, the PTA for enforcement. The ISPs simply comply.

Decisions are reached and imposed. Who is on the IMC — other than the various ministries and agencies — and what its decision-making process entails remains unknown. There is no public disclosure or documentation of the decisions, neither is public input taken into account. The only input, it seems, that is taken into account is that of violent mobs and law-breakers. And there is no way of challenging the decision other than going the court route.

Also, this process has been known to be hijacked by vested interests who, by sheer clout, are able to override it and ensure their own decisions are implemented — at whichever level.

Time and again, Pakistan’s internet users have been subjected to bans and blockades. Always, these decisions have been arbitrary as has been the manner of implementation. In the past, ISPs have acted as whistle-blowers for outing political censorship. And this, in fact, has been the only disclosure regarding decisions made behind closed doors.

But what happens if state-level filters are installed? Since the first day in office, Minister of State Anusha Rahman has maintained that as soon as filters are in place, YouTube will be reopened. According to the minister, filters will do the needful — block the video but provide access to the platform. Repeatedly, the ministry and others in government have been apprised of the dangers of filtering. But what’s really surprising is how the ministry seems to have found a solution in a few weeks time, just as the next court hearing is upon them.

It is pertinent to mention that twice the minister and the secretary IT were told to appear in court but excused themselves. The objective was for the political leadership to get involved, hear what everyone had to say and then take steps to resolve the issue. But the pursuit of filters displays a disregard for any input other than their own. While the court has not reached a conclusion on the YouTube case yet, it has raised the question as to why attempts to block should be made, when they can’t guarantee 100 per cent results; should there not be another solution? This was arrived at after hearing state and non-state actors extensively on the policy and technology aspects of the issue.

A solution to address the YouTube ban and similar issues has been pending for months, years, in fact, as the same challenge presented itself when Facebook was banned in 2010. According to the PTA’s submission to court, no system exists in Pakistan that can block HTTPS URLs, which is why particular links to the video could not be blocked, but the whole domain had to be. How has this system suddenly been unearthed by the ministry? And why, against the cautioning of civil society and experts, who have consistently maintained it will cause a huge breach of privacy and compromise online safety and security, is it being pursued? Accepting filters to reopen YouTube will be an extremely damaging compromise if it is made, much worse than the blocking of one platform.

To date, manual methods have been employed to achieve blocking. What happens when ISPs are also taken out of the picture? If filters are installed, would they be at the gateway level? According to statements issued by the ministry, PTCL is providing it with the technology for free, for a period of one year. Where does it intend to install this system? At the gateway level or at landing stations where internet traffic enters the country? If government-owned landing stations are given the sole right to operate the mechanism, who is to check what more than ‘objectionable’ — and whose criteria of objectionable — is taken down? And what of compromised communication security? Who becomes privy to everything one says or does on the internet?

What China with innumerable resources and finances has not been able to achieve, Pakistan thinks it can. As rapidly as blocking technology evolves, so do circumvention tools. Access through proxies has proved this much. Is it justified then to spend millions on technology that is easy to sidestep in the first place? Also important to remember is that China, Iran and Saudi Arabia are not models to emulate, not if Pakistan is a democratic country and the present government intends for it to remain so. What China, Iran and Saudi Arabia do is in the capacity of a non-democratic set-up. Democracies don’t allow for authoritarian mindsets that decide and impose decisions even if they override citizens’ rights. So, either Pakistan is a democracy, or it is not. And if it is, then democratic processes must be followed and rights must be protected.

The Express Tribune

Posted on

Court moved against ban on journalists

ISLAMABAD: A petition has been filed against banning journalists’ entry into the special terrorism court in Islamabad on Wednesday. The petition was heard by Special Court Judge Attiqur Rehman in his chamber. The judge also summoned deputy attorney general as amicus curiae in the case.

The petition was filed by Islamabad High Court Journalists Association.The counsel for journalists adopted a stand during hearing that Article 19A of the Constitution allows every citizen including journalists to get access to the information and the journalists are the main source of information for the public.After hearing the comments the judge adjourned the hearing till September 2.

The News

Posted on

Senate body approves ‘freedom of information law’ draft

ISLAMABAD: The Senate committee on information and broadcasting on Wednesday approved the draft of a much-awaited “Freedom of Information Law”. The committee finalised the draft after eight months of deliberations. It ignored reservations of the defence authorities. The draft was prepared by the ministry on the recommendations of a sub-committee headed by Farhatullah Babar, the President’s spokesman.

It was decided that the committee chairman, Kamil Ali Agha, would move it in the Senate as a multi-party bill on Thursday. “I will submit the draft of the bill before Senate Secretariat on Thursday,” said Mr Agha while talking to Dawn.

In reply to a question about addressing the defence ministry’s (MoD) reservations, Farhatullah Babar said the Senate could not wait for long for the ministry’s reply.

The MoD had asked the Senate’s sub-committee on information to keep the bill pending till further orders of the defence authorities.

Later it asked the committee to incorporate a condition in the draft making it mandatory on anyone seeking official information to get a No Objection Certificate (NOC).

The committee, however, rejected the defence ministry’s point of view and approved the draft of the freedom of information law.

Senator Babar said the committee waited quite long for a letter from the ministry and then decided to approve the draft.

Mr Agha said the bill would give media and the common man access to all types of information – be it secret, classified, confidential or simple.

“Each and every government department comes under the ambit of the bill and they will have to provide all kinds of information to people,” said Mr Agha.

He said although the bill was not media-specific, the media will have more access to information than a common man.

Mr Agha said decisions of the government would be placed on websites. “Even appointments of officials and their perks and privileges will be placed on the website,” he said.

Under the law, government officials will provide information within 20 days or else a complaint may be lodged against him/her which will be decided by the head of the relevant department in next 20 days.

Asked about action against officials for non-compliance, he said the bill has proposed punishment to official/s for not providing the required information. “We also suggested punishment in this regard in the bill,” he added.

Pervaiz Rasheed, the minister for information and broadcasting, said the government believed in consensus and took decision after taking on board all stakeholders and cited the example of a similar bill adopted by the Punjab cabinet before the dissolution of assemblies.

The committee finally decided that the bill would be moved by its chairman Kamil Ali Agha on a private members day as a multi-party bill.

Later, the government will own the bill and present it in the cabinet for approval.

FIR AGAINST A PRIVATE TV CHANNEL: The committee condemned the registration of an FIR against a private television channel and decided to summon the Balochistan information secretary to record his statement on the unfortunate incident. The information minister told the committee that Balochistan Chief Minister Dr Abdul Malik had informed the court that the case was registered on the orders of the Supreme Court.

DAWN

Posted on

Media and the inept Balochistan government

By: Ejaz Haider

The cabinet-less Balochistan government, as effective as a blindfolded man walking down a busy highway, decided this week to lodge a First Information Report against a private TV channel for airing a video of how the self-styled Balochistan Liberation Army goons destroyed the Quaid’s Residency in Ziarat.

But this isn’t all. The police officer who registered the FIR indicated in the document that he is doing this on instructions from the Information Department of the Balochistan government. The government spokesman tried to wash his hands off of this by saying that they were instructed by the Supreme Court (SC), which apparently took suo motu notice of the airing of the video. The SC demanded on August 26 that the Court be told why the Balochistan government would ascribe its own actions to the highest Court in the land.

Corollary: The SC never ordered the Balochistan government to initiate proceedings against the channel. Not only that, but to register an FIR which contains three sections from the Anti-terrorism Act. Going by this sequence of events, the Balochistan government, clearly, is not only inept but also a liar.

Who is lying? One thing should be clear: the police officer didn’t initiate the FIR or he wouldn’t have quoted from the Information Department letter in that document. Good for him because in doing so, he has saved his backside when this matter is further investigated. In all this, of course, it is the backside of the Balochistan government that now not only lies exposed but is squarely positioned towards the sun. And there is only one thing that normally happens with any backside in that position. It gets kicked well and proper.

There is a bigger question here, though. Should that particular channel or any channel for that matter, have shown the ugliness and hatred evident in the video that is freely available on the internet?

There can be three approaches to answering this question, two being extreme. I’d call one the utilitarian approach — i.e., the media’s job is to show whatever is out there, regardless of the consequences. The other extreme is the position that the media mustn’t show anything that goes against the norms, values and the interests of a society and state. The problem with this argument is that it begins to crumble when the trotter is quizzed about defining those norms, values and interests, and to prove their universality.

The third approach is the middle way. It begins with the assertion that the media must show how things are but, because actions have consequences, the decision about what to show and what to withhold cannot be taken cavalierly. The implication is that each case will have to be weighed separately and debated within a context. Another issue is about the timing of the decision. Oft we might choose to withhold something which we can air later because the circumstances that forced the decision to withhold the airing (or writing) of something are no more relevant. A good example can be an ongoing operation or any information that can compromise the integrity of an activity and cause grave damage.

The point is that while the media cannot be barred from airing content, each case must be treated as sui generis and a decision taken on that basis.

In today’s world, however, this middle way has come under tremendous pressure. The mainstream media does not have a monopoly on information. Anyone can not only acquire information but also disseminate it with the push of a button. In this case, even if the TV channel had chosen to ignore this video, it’s out there for millions of people to see across the globe. Of course, one can choose yet to not show it on the basis of one’s own decision, based on an assessment that it mustn’t be shown. But that is not the same thing as in the old days when I could have sat on some information and kept it secure because I might be the only one to have it.

Today, it’s more like arguing that while I know this information is out there, I feel that I should not disseminate it. The problem, however, remains and is yet unresolved. How much of the information must be regulated — or regulated at all.

This is also becoming a problem for states as they get into a long, simmering conflict with non-state actors, insurgents and terrorists, maybe even hi-tech loonies. Groups and individuals opposed to states, irrespective of their ideologies, have the same access to information and the tools for dissemination as the states. The internet is an equal opportunity domain.

Some people might shrug this problem off but it is a real problem for states and will steadily become worse. The measures states are likely to take will be drastic and in this regard, democracies are likely to be bigger offenders than dictatorships. What makes the situation more complicated is the fact that the idea of a state is a very problematic idea even as it is the only organising principle — thus far.

The situation not only demands new thinking but also new laws. Crude attempts to muzzle the media, as the Balochistan government has tried to do, will not work. In fact, the Balochistan government would be better advised to direct its ‘efficiency’ towards those elements that snuck up to the Residency, stayed there for almost 20 minutes, went from room to room, guns slung over their shoulders, vandalised the place and hoisted the flag of ‘Azad’ Balochistan with the state nowhere in sight.

In the media, we have to position our arguments and stories. I used one minute of the Pakistan Taliban’s 18-minute clip of the Bannu jailbreak for my TV programme. I stand by that decision because that was the only way to show viewers how inefficient the state and its functionaries are and how we can take corrective measures against this threat.

We are going to see more of this tension, which is why the media and the government have to become sophisticated in their approaches both in relation to their own actions as well as in their dealings with each other.

(According to a news report, on August 27, Chief Minister Balochistan Dr Abdul Malik Baloch, speaking in the provincial assembly, said that the FIR had been withdrawn, adding that the Balochistan government had not ordered that it be registered. He termed the entire matter a ‘misunderstanding’.)

Express Tribune

Posted on

FIR against TV channel – Opp walks out from Senate against Balochistan govt’s move

By: Ijaz Kakakhel

ISLAMABAD: PPP-led opposition parties in the Senate on Tuesday protested over the registration of an FIR against a private TV channel and staged a walk out from the House.

At the beginning of Upper House’s proceedings, Opposition Leader in the Senate Aitzaz Ahsan said that although opposition has reservations on the conduct of media, it stands by media in this hour of trial.
He said that walk out by journalists from the press gallery is not good because the media is an important part of parliament which is “incomplete without press gallery”.

He expressed his concerns over registration of the FIR, which invokes anti-terror laws against the management and reporter of the TV channel. He urged Minister for Information and Broadcasting Pervaiz Rashid to look into the matter and resolve the issue.

Aitzaz also announced a walk out from the House to record his protest.

MQM Senator Tahir Mashhadi appreciated the role of media and stressed withdrawal of the FIR against the CEO and a bureau chief of the TV channel.

“Today is black day for democracy in Pakistan. The media has always highlighted incidents of target and extra-judicial killings in Karachi… today we all should support the media in this crucial time.”

Senator Abdul Rauf said his Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party would continue its support for the media.
Hasil Bizenjo said the FIR against the TV channel has not been registered by the provincial government. “The Balochistan government can never think of imposing curbs on media.”

Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said the government fully supports independence of media because it is an important pillar of democracy. He clarified that the federal government has played no role in registration of the FIR.

Pervaiz Rashid assured the senators of all-out efforts to resolve the issue.

Responding to points of order raised by various opposition members in the Senate, he said the case against a private news channel had been registered on the directive of Balochistan High Court.

“The government does not want to impose any restriction on the media, rather it will protect the media freedom,” he added.

Meanwhile, Aitzaz pointed out that the House was not in order as media persons were not present in the gallery.

Senate Chairman Syed Nayyer Hussain Bukhari suspended the proceedings for 15 minutes and directed the information minister to persuade the media personnel to come to the House and cover the proceedings.

The minister visited the press gallery and assured reporters that the issue would be resolved. Senators Nasreen Jalil, Abbas Khan Afridi, Saeed Ghani and Farhatullah Babar accompanied the minister.
Nisar Ali Khan informed the Senate that law enforcement agencies had so far traced 93 out of 381 disappeared persons from all over the country.

Replying to a question, the interior minister said that law enforcement agencies had traced 48 missing persons from Punjab, 32 from Islamabad Capital Territory, seven from Balochistan and six from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, no disappeared person was traced from Sindh, he added.

He also informed the House that around 381 persons had disappeared during 2012 from all over the country.

According to the record of law enforcement agencies, 75 persons disappeared from the ICT, 153 Punjab, 98 Sindh, 34 KP and 21 from Balochistan. Nisar said that the cases of remaining disappeared persons were being investigated by the seasoned police officers, which were expected to be worked out soon.
All the station house officers have been directed to register the case upon receipt of any complaint regarding enforced disappearance, he added.

To a question, the minister agreed that the aforementioned figures “are not realistic” as they were provided by provincial governments.

Daily Times

Posted on

Muzzling journalism: FIR against news network

THE chief minister of Balochistan has apologised, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry has sought an explanation and scores have protested. Yet, the fact remains that the FIR was filed on the basis of reasoning that bodes ill for not just media freedoms but also citizens’ right to information. The burning down of the Ziarat Residency was shocking enough. But soon after, footage emerged that showed that the account offered by the government was inaccurate. The state had initially said that the heritage building had been targeted remotely. The video, however, showed masked men on the premises wreaking destruction even before the flames were lit. It was this last aspect that agitated the Supreme Court when it took suo motu notice on the airing of these clips on an ARY News network programme. The concern was that the footage could be in contravention of Pemra rules that nothing shall be aired that incites violence or tends to glorify crime. This, in turn, led Balochistan’s information department to allege that ARY News had run “objectionable video clips”, and an FIR was registered under provisions of the 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act that pertain to disseminating material to incite hatred or projecting the cause of terrorists.

As violent extremism grows in Pakistan, news networks in the country have learned to tread the thin line between projecting an anarchic cause and remaining true to their responsibility of putting things on record and informing the public. What we saw in the ARY case was no different from an attempt to muzzle the media. Worryingly, this is not the first time. Last September, cases were registered against some Balochistan publications and news agencies for reporting on militancy. Before that, the provincial high court had ruled that the publication or broadcast of a report on a proscribed organisation would be considered a violation of the law. The realisation needs to dawn that extremism cannot be countered through curbing the media’s ability to report on it; that would be to be distracted by a dangerous red herring.

DAWN

Posted on

Case against ARY News withdrawn, CM tells assembly

QUETTA: The Balochistan chief minister announced on Tuesday withdrawal of the case registered against the ARY News because the “FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding”.

Dr Abdul Malik Baloch said he had been told that the case was registered on directives of the Supreme Court, but the registrar of the apex court later clarified that the court had not issued any directive for filing a case against the private TV channel on charges of showing footage of the attack on the Quaid’s residency at Ziarat in June.

The chief minister assured the house that the government would investigate, among other matters, the identity of the official on whose orders the case was registered under the Anti-Terrorism Act against the channel’s chief executive. However, he criticised as unbecoming the language used by two anchors of the ARY News.

Our Hyderabad Bureau adds: Journalists in Hyderabad staged a rally on Tuesday against registration of the case against ARY News.

The rally started from the Hyderabad Press Club and terminated near Radio Pakistan. Hamid Shaikh, the club’s secretary, said lodging an FIR against journalists was shocking.

DAWN