| dc.description.abstract | Using Norway and Pakistan its case, this dissertation discusses various online content regulations and their impacts on free speech. Theoretically, internet regulations were introduced to control hate speech, blasphemous and abusive content in Norway and Pakistan. However, authorities, especially from Pakistan, are criticized for misusing these regulations. This thesis looks at various content regulations and further examines how the authorities have misused them to suppress freedom of speech, specifically in Pakistan. This qualitative research brings forth several examples from Pakistan where dissent voices, journalists, activists, and political opponents suffered harassment under internet regulatory laws. Considerably situation remains completely different in Norway, where free speech is guaranteed in the presence of internet rules and laws. In Pakistan’s case, where the internet regulatory laws are exploited, independent rights watchdog observe that it is both due to lack of a solid political structure and strong presence of radical Islamist in legislative assemblies. The dissertation applies a historical analysis discussing how media in Pakistan and Norway developed. Later authorities established regulatory bodies to control online and print media and gave extensive powers to these bodies to censor any content characterized as blasphemous, hateful, derogatory, and abusive. The current research project applies Freedom of Speech theory through the case of Norway and Pakistan, two politically and culturally different states. Norway has an active media policy where state regulations are introduced to improve free speech; on the contrary, Pakistan’s laws are designed to control free speech. The study further employs a qualitative content analysis approach, emphasizing document analysis of a vast data set. The document comprises the provision of the constitution of the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan dealing with online content and reports from well-reputed independent internet rights watchdogs. The research reveals that the state firmly controls the internet in Pakistan through aggressive and internet unfriendly laws that encourage self-censorship and fear among journalists, activists, and opposition members. It is not the case in Norway. Thus, I proposed that internet rules are not always repressive and do not necessarily undermine speech. I argue that internet rules should be in place to make the internet safer. Norway is an example. The research concludes that internet regulations are important that can help circumvent hateful speech, glorification of terror acts, and abusive contents online. | eng |