• A Pakistani court has suspended a ban on the YouTube channels of 27 critics, including journalists and opposition members.
• The ban was originally sought due to accusations of sharing anti-state content.
• Legal and digital rights experts view this as a critical issue for free speech in Pakistan.
• The next court hearing is scheduled for July 21.
• Rights groups condemned the initial order as an attack on press freedom.

A Pakistani court has suspended an order prohibiting YouTube from blocking the channels of over two dozen critics of the government, including ex-Prime Minister Imran Khan, amidst fears of this action undermining free speech. The suspension was granted on Friday after a regional court admitted revision petitions from journalists Matiullah Jan and Asad Ali Toor, who argued that they had not been given prior notice about the ban, which violated Article 10-A of the Constitution, according to Dawn and Reuters.

The initial ban stemmed from a court order citing that the channels were sharing "fake, misleading, and defamatory" content about the state and its institutions, as reported by India Times and Dawn. This court ruling had prompted YouTube to inform 27 content creators that their channels could be removed if they did not comply with the restrictions imposed on them.

Despite the suspension for the two petitioners, the threat to the remaining channels persists, with authorities hinting at possible criminal charges against their operators. Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry stated that they would face further legal consequences, which has sparked outrage among advocacy groups and greeted with criticism from various human rights organizations, as stated by Dawn and Reuters.

Legal representatives, such as the petitioners’ counsel Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir, echoed concerns regarding the absence of legal basis for the initial order, calling it a "one-sided decision" and criticizing the magistrate court for exceeding its jurisdiction on such matters, according to Reuters and India Times.

The suspension of the ban is viewed as a significant victory for advocates of free expression, particularly in a political climate where dissent is increasingly being categorized as criminal activity rather than legitimate criticism. Rights groups have already condemned the original decision as an "assault on press freedom," emphasizing the need for precise legal interventions that respect constitutional rights, as articulated by Dawn and Reuters.