Freedom of expression is widely recognised as a foundational pillar of democracy and an essential safeguard of civic liberty. A democratic state cannot function without the free exchange of ideas, criticism and dissent. However, when this freedom is weaponised to spread organised falsehoods, engage in character assassination, cyber harassment and political vendettas, it ceases to strengthen democracy and instead begins to corrode it from within. In recent years, Bangladesh has witnessed an alarming rise in digital toxicity, particularly across social media platforms and university spaces. The disturbing rise of coordinated propaganda campaigns, online harassment, and targeted cyberattacks against political figures and their family members reflects not merely political polarisation but a deeper moral and institutional crisis within the country's digital culture.
The recent online attacks targeting Prime Minister and BNP Chairman Tarique Rahman and his daughter, Barrister Zaima Rahman, illustrate how digital platforms are increasingly being transformed into instruments of humiliation and organised abuse. Distorted photo cards, fabricated narratives, vulgar insinuations and manipulated content are circulated through thousands of fake or automated accounts with the apparent objective of influencing public perception and dehumanising political opponents. These activities are not isolated acts of frustration by random individuals. Rather, they bear the characteristics of a coordinated "information warfare" ecosystem where disinformation, misinformation, and psychological manipulation are systematically deployed to shape narratives and inflame emotions.
This phenomenon is globally recognised in technological and policy discourse as "Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour" (CIB). Through networks of bot accounts, anonymous profiles, paid trolls, and algorithm-driven amplification, organised actors can artificially manufacture public outrage and manipulate online discourse. Such tactics have become increasingly common across platforms like Facebook, X, and Telegram. The implications extend far beyond partisan politics. When even a highly educated public figure such as Zaima Rahman becomes the target of coordinated cyberbullying and misogynistic attacks, it exposes the vulnerability faced by ordinary women and young citizens in Bangladesh's digital space. The normalisation of such harassment contributes to a wider culture of fear, intimidation, and social degradation.
The consequences of digital propaganda are not confined to cyberspace alone. Increasingly, online misinformation campaigns are spilling over into educational institutions and public life. At several universities, including the University of Dhaka, rumours, manipulated videos, edited audio clips, and inflammatory narratives have been used to provoke unrest, intensify factional tensions, and emotionally mobilise students. Small incidents are often exaggerated through bot-driven amplification to create communal or ideological polarisation. Such developments are particularly dangerous in a country where social cohesion and political stability remain fragile. A generation constantly exposed to hatred, fabricated narratives, and digital mob culture risks becoming more intolerant, emotionally reactive, and vulnerable to extremist tendencies.
Equally concerning is the growing institutionalisation of propaganda within political competition itself. In many cases, political actors appear more invested in operating "fake news factories" online than engaging in substantive democratic debate. Organised teams involving graphic designers, anonymous content creators, and coordinated digital operatives are increasingly employed to produce sensationalist and defamatory content targeting opponents. This reflects a broader deterioration of political culture where humiliation and viral manipulation are replacing ideological contestation and policy discourse. Once such tactics become normalised, ordinary supporters begin to perceive digital abuse and misinformation as legitimate political activism. The long-term outcome is a toxic democratic environment built upon resentment, dehumanisation, and permanent distrust.
Bangladesh is not alone in confronting these challenges. Many democratic societies have already introduced legal and regulatory frameworks to address digital disinformation while protecting freedom of speech. Germany introduced the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), requiring social media companies to remove clearly unlawful hate speech and false information within a short timeframe or face substantial financial penalties. The European Union adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA) to impose greater accountability on technology companies regarding harmful online content and algorithmic transparency. Similarly, Singapore enacted the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) to counter organised online disinformation campaigns. These frameworks demonstrate that protecting freedom of expression does not require tolerating digital anarchy or organised deception.
In the Bangladeshi context, there is an urgent need for a transparent, balanced, and politically neutral legal framework that clearly defines propaganda, disinformation, cyberbullying, organised online harassment, and coordinated manipulation networks. Ambiguity within the law often creates opportunities for selective enforcement or political misuse. Therefore, legal definitions must be precise enough to distinguish between legitimate criticism and deliberate disinformation campaigns. At the same time, authorities must strengthen technological and cyber forensic capabilities to identify bot networks, fake accounts, and coordinated propaganda operations. Social media companies should also be required to cooperate more effectively with local institutions to remove harmful content and dismantle organised manipulation structures operating within Bangladesh.
However, legislation alone cannot solve this crisis. Digital literacy must become a national priority. Citizens, particularly young people, need to develop the ability to critically assess online information, identify manipulated content, and resist emotionally driven misinformation. Educational institutions should incorporate media literacy and ethical digital citizenship into curricula to cultivate a culture of responsible online engagement. Simultaneously, the state must ensure that cyber laws are never used as instruments to silence dissent, suppress journalism, or criminalise legitimate criticism of government policies. The objective should be to protect truth, dignity, and public stability, not to weaken democratic accountability.
Ultimately, democracy cannot survive in an environment where lies spread faster than facts and where coordinated harassment replaces civil discourse. Criticism is essential in any democratic society, but criticism must remain evidence-based, ethical, and respectful of personal dignity. Dragging private lives into political warfare and encouraging vulgar cyber-attacks is not an expression of democratic courage; it is a manifestation of moral and political bankruptcy. Bangladesh now stands at a critical crossroads. The country must decide whether it wishes to build a digital culture rooted in truth, responsibility, and democratic civility, or allow organised propaganda, cyberbullying, and digital extremism to define the future of public discourse. The true meaning of freedom of expression lies not in the unrestricted spread of falsehoods, but in the responsible pursuit of truth while respecting the rights and dignity of others.
The writer is Senior Lecturer, Department of Global Studies & Governance, School of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (SLASS), Independent University, Bangladesh (IUB)
jaman@iub.edu.bd