07/12/2025
Statement on Cyber-Harassment Case Against Online Platforms
Cost Of Speech expresses deep concern and strong opposition to the cyber-harassment case filed by Dhaka University Central Students’ Union (DUCSU) vice president Abu Shadik Kayem at Shahbagh Police Station against 18 individuals and at least 15 pages, including the satirical platform Earki, alongside pages such as DU Insiders, Katherkella, Bangladesh Ultraverse, Rog Porichorja Kendra, Pangash, 10% Memes and several DUCSU-related platforms.
While every person, including elected student leaders, has the right to seek redress for genuine threats, doxxing or targeted gendered abuse, the use of criminal cyber provisions to pursue satire, memes and political ridicule sets a dangerous precedent. As a senior representative of DUCSU and a leader of Bangladesh Islami Chhatra Shibir, Kayem holds a public position that necessarily attracts robust criticism and satire, and must show a higher tolerance for dissent and parody than ordinary citizens.
Bangladesh’s recent legal history makes this case especially troubling. The now-repealed Digital Security Act was widely condemned for being used to arrest journalists, activists and ordinary social media users over “offensive” or “defamatory” expression online.
The subsequent Cyber Security Act of 2023 was criticised by rights groups for largely mirroring the same repressive framework. The interim government has since scrapped the CSA and moved to a new cyber ordinance, promising to drop controversial speech-related provisions and focus on real cybercrime and politically motivated abuse of these laws.
Against that backdrop, using the new cyber framework — or any related provisions — to target satirical and critical student pages risks reproducing the very patterns of “lawfare” that the reforms were supposed to end. It blurs the line between tackling genuine online harms and criminalising ridicule, political embarrassment and dissent. Legal scholars and rights groups have long warned that vague cyber-offence definitions create space for abuse and public fear; applying them to student memes and satire will normalise treating political disagreement as a police matter rather than part of democratic debate.
We are particularly concerned about the chilling effect this case may have on students, women and marginalised groups who use humour, parody and anonymous pages to speak about power, ideology and campus politics. If a DUCSU office-bearer can respond to criticism with criminal complaints, many students and creators will self-censor rather than risk being summoned to a police station.
We therefore:
** Call for the immediate review and withdrawal of this case insofar as it targets lawful satire, memes, commentary and political criticism, and for a clear public explanation of the legal basis under which it was filed.
** Urge the government, police and university authorities to ensure that the new cyber framework is not used to silence criticism, and that any future digital law or ordinance explicitly protects satire, parody and peaceful political expression in line with Bangladesh’s constitutional guarantees and international obligations.
** Call on DUCSU leaders and all student organisations to resolve disputes through dialogue, counterspeech and internal mechanisms rather than criminal complaints, and to affirm that elected student representatives will not resort to cyber laws to manage criticism of their public roles.
If this case is allowed to proceed as a template for handling online dissent, it will send a message that the new era of digital rights is digital repression by another name. Protecting satire and dissent — especially on campuses that call themselves the “second parliament” of Bangladesh — is essential if the promise of legal reform is to mean anything beyond words.
