We have a right to privacy too. We are entitled to the protection of the law. It is obligatory for organs of state and state functionaries to upold law and ensure rights don't just exist on paper, but also in practice. Does that concern you as much too? https://www.samaa.tv/news/pakistan/2020/07/social-media-judges-supreme-court/

If as a judge you are aggrieved by a personal act against you, file a complaint under the law. You cannot use your public office to instruct what should be "indepedent" regulators and LEAs, to launch a withchunt against a range of content or deprive citizens from whole platforms.

Why should a public official be granted special favours & their grievances of a personal nature be expedited over citizen complaints, which are often left unaddressed? Law prescribes a procedure. Are judicial officers going to set different standards for themselves, beyond law?

A clear distinction must be drawn between personalized attacks that fall foul of laws, and political speech and expression whether to do with courts or any state institution or official. All orders & actions must be balanced against rights - even if today they exist only on paper

Judicial officers & government officials tend to issue blanket statements vis a vis regulation of Internet content in other jurisidictions. This practice must be checked. These are rhetoric infused statements, not rooted in facts. EU & US are erroneously referenced in the report.

Speech about the state or state officials is NOT regulated the way it is here. We have a problem with terming everything as "against" institutions. Twitter, a US-based company flagged Trump's tweet. Do you think this could even happen here? His executive order has been challenged

Elsewhere, laws in these jurisidctions place emphasis on independent, autonomous bodies especially regulators. Not us. We aspire to maximise discretion & house everything under the executive. Separation of powers and indepedence of institutions is not something we seek to uphold.

What laws also do is prescribe offences or procedures which have to do with harm against private individuals, not state officials. Also, if we're referencing other jurisdictions, "scandalizing" the court no longer a category under contempt laws. So why not look at these examples?

Expectations go both ways. How judges adjudicate is to be guided by their code of conduct and they are duty-bound to uphold what is enshrined in the Constitution. Citizens have every right to exercise rights under the Constitution and be protected against arbitrary state action.

Look around you. Your peers, present and past. Assess how respectful the attitude is towards litigants and citizens of this country. How shaken are you by the excesses against them every day, and what do you do when these cases are brought before you. Expect only what you fulfil.

Before turning to court, citizens expected to exhaust all available remedies. Were remedies even attempted in this case? Did the affected party:
1) Report content under community guidelines
2) File complaint with PTA providing links
3) File complaint with the FIA providing links

PTA has powers under Sec 37 of PECA for specific content categories, for blocking, restriction, routing of requests. For content under Sections 20, 21, 22 & 24, law requires "aggrieved person" to apply to PTA for such content. This is not available for other sections of the law.

Other than Sections 10, 21 and 22, all offences under PECA are non-cognizable. So FIA cannot - nor should it be asked to - take cognizance. The law requires a complaint - and for some sections requirement is "aggrieved person" only - and magistrate's approval for investigation.

Now if the three remedies listed have not been attempted or availed, the question is why? A bare reading of PECA should make several things clear. If technology is too hard to understand, experts can be called in to inform the court. Instead, blanket statements are being issued.

Platform policies, applicability of local laws, laws here, all of this has been covered exhaustively over the years in public discourse, parliament, even court orders. YouTube ban of 2012 and debates around PECA 2016 document it all. Update yourselves. Honestly, just Google it.