Bangladesh’s current Cyber Protection Act must not be confused with the laws that preceded it. It originated in the Cyber Protection Ordinance, promulgated by the erstwhile Muhammad Yunus-led interim government in May last year, and was subsequently enacted as the Cyber Protection Act, 2026, by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-majority parliament in this year’s April.The ordinance repealed the Cyber Security Act of 2023 and represented a substantial departure from the approach embodied in Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act and the Digital Security Act of 2018, both regressive and coercive tools used disproportionately by the state to suppress dissenters.It narrowed several offences previously used to prosecute journalists, critics and ordinary citizens for online expression. The legislation was not perfect. But it acknowledged that protecting cyber space and policing public speech are different responsibilities of the state. The BNP government now proposes to disturb that distinction. Its draft Cyber Protection (Amendment) Act, 2026, would reintroduce broadly defined speech offences and expand the risks associated with publishing disputed information. It will also strengthen mechanisms through which digital content can be restricted.The result could be a law as restrictive as its predecessors, potentially more so in certain respects. For journalists, the danger lies not simply in the severity of punishment but in the discretion afforded to those who investigate alleged offences and determine what information may circulate.Also read: Ambani, Adani-Owned Media Outlets Challenge Modi Government’s Data Protection LawThe most consequential proposal is Section 26A, which would criminalise the dissemination of unverified information online, carrying a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.The problem begins with the word “unverified”. Information can be accurate without having been officially confirmed. An investigative journalist may possess documents showing irregularities in a government procurement contract while the ministry concerned denies wrongdoing. A reporter may establish that police opened fire on demonstrators before an official inquiry reaches its conclusions.Under an inadequately defined prohibition on unverified information, the act of publishing such findings could itself become grounds for criminal investigation.This reverses a fundamental principle of journalism. Reporters are expected to verify information through evidence and independent sources, not obtain permission from the institutions they investigate. The proposed provision risks allowing the subjects of scrutiny to challenge publication simply because they dispute its accuracy.Jail timeThe punishment is equally troubling. A maximum 10-year sentence for circulating disputed information places a speech-related offence alongside exceptionally serious cybercrimes. Even where conviction is unlikely, the possibility of arrest prolonged proceedings along with possible imprisonment creates a powerful incentive to avoid contentious reporting. Section 25 presents another difficulty. The existing provision addresses offences including sexual harassment, blackmail, revenge pornography and child sexual abuse material. These are legitimate subjects for criminal regulation.The draft, however, would extend its reach to defamation and humiliation while increasing the general maximum prison sentence from two years to five. For offences against women, the maximum would rise from five years to 10.The addition of poorly defined reputational offences to legislation addressing serious forms of online abuse is particularly problematic.An investigation into a politician’s undeclared wealth, a business executive’s financial misconduct or a public official’s abuse of authority will almost inevitably damage the subject’s reputation. That consequence does not establish that the reporting is unlawful.Unless the legislation clearly distinguishes malicious harassment from evidence-based journalism, complainants could attempt to characterise legitimate investigations as humiliation or defamation.Also read: The Revolution in Bangladesh Ate Its ReportersThe proposed changes to Section 8 would create a different form of vulnerability. They would broaden the authorities empowered to seek the removal or blocking of online material, including the Ministry of Information and other designated agencies, while removing the existing requirement for subsequent judicial approval.Those affected would instead have to seek restoration of their material through the relevant authority or a court.For a digital newsroom, this is a serious procedural imbalance. A report could be removed at the moment it attracts public attention. Even if subsequently restored, its immediate public value may have disappeared.The financial consequences also matter. Digital publishers depend on timely distribution, readership and advertising. Blocking an investigation can damage both its reach and the commercial viability of the organisation that produced it. What history saysBangladesh has considerable evidence of what happens when criminal law is used to adjudicate disputes over expression.Research by the Centre for Governance Studies examined 1,436 Digital Security Act cases between October 2018 and September 2023, identifying 4,520 accused people and 1,549 arrests. Journalists accounted for approximately 29.4% of those accused, equivalent to about 1,329 people.The study also found that journalists outside Dhaka were particularly exposed and that reporting activities frequently prompted complaints.Section 57 of the earlier ICT Act established the pattern. In one six-month period, the country’s largest newspaper Prothom Alo reported that at least 19 journalists had been implicated under the provision, with many complaints connected to politically influential individuals.The evidence across these laws demonstrates repeated prosecution and arrests, although no reliable consolidated count has been established here for journalists actually sentenced to prison across Section 57, the Digital Security Act and the 2023 Cyber Security Act. Arrest, pre-trial imprisonment and conviction must not be treated as interchangeable statistics. The government has acknowledged the concerns. At a September 28 consultation, Bangladesh home minister Salahuddin Ahmed promised safeguards against harassment of journalists. On October 5, the authorities established a 17-member media committee to review the draft, with recommendations requested within seven days. Consultation is welcome, but ministerial assurances cannot substitute for statutory protections. The draft should remove criminal liability for vaguely defined unverified information, exclude legitimate public-interest reporting from reputational offences and require independent judicial oversight of content blocking.Journalists should remain accountable for deliberate fabrication and unlawful intrusion but those matters require clearly defined standards, proportionate remedies and independent adjudication.Faisal Mahmud is a Dhaka-based journalist. He is the managing editor of Daily Waadaa.