Free speech, hate speech and disinformation: a comparative sstudy of Pakistan and U.S regulations.

Abstract

This thesis conducts a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks governing free speech, hate speech, and disinformation in Pakistan and the United States. The study critically examines the philosophical foundations of free speech and the constitutional protections in both countries, focusing on the regulatory measures in place to address hate speech and the challenge of disinformation in the digital age. In the U.S., the First Amendment’s protection of free speech is explored in the context of landmark Supreme Court cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, alongside the implications of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for regulating online content. In contrast, Pakistan’s constitutional framework, coupled with its blasphemy laws and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, is examined for its approach to regulating speech, particularly with respect to hate speech and disinformation in digital spaces. The thesis highlights the key differences between the two countries' legal approaches, driven by their distinct cultural, political, and religious contexts. Additionally, it provides a global perspective by briefly reviewing the regulatory measures in other jurisdictions, such as the European Union and India, to identify emerging trends in the regulation of speech in the digital era. Ultimately, the research emphasizes the need for a balanced regulatory framework that upholds free speech while effectively addressing the harmful effects of hate speech and disinformation, considering both national and international legal perspectives.