Taliban-Era Restrictions On Internet Access And Criminal Liability
I. Introduction
Since regaining control of Afghanistan in August 2021, the Taliban have reimposed a variety of social, political, and informational restrictions, including control over digital communications and internet usage.
While Afghanistan previously had a growing internet ecosystem, the Taliban view unregulated internet access—especially social media, Western content, and dissenting voices—as a threat to their ideological control. As a result, tight regulations and informal criminal liability have emerged for violating these digital boundaries.
II. Legal and Political Context
No Comprehensive Digital Law
Afghanistan lacks a cohesive digital criminal code.
The Telecommunications Law and Cyber Crime Law (2018) remain in legal limbo under the Taliban.
De facto Taliban decrees and intelligence guidelines govern internet use.
Key Taliban Restrictions
Blocking of websites: News portals, social media (particularly Facebook, Twitter/X, YouTube).
Censorship: Online criticism of the regime, dissemination of “immoral” content, or sharing anti-Taliban material.
Surveillance: Expanded monitoring of online activity via intelligence networks.
Punishment without formal trial: Arbitrary detention, forced confessions, and physical punishment are commonly used.
III. Grounds for Criminal Liability
Criminal liability for internet-related offenses under the Taliban often stems from:
Publishing anti-regime content
Communicating with foreign media or activists
Viewing or sharing "immoral" material (e.g., music, films, non-Islamic content)
Circumventing content restrictions via VPNs
Cyber defamation of Taliban officials or institutions
Punishment may include:
Arrest without formal charges
Interrogation and physical abuse
Imprisonment or forced confession on national television
Bans on future internet use
IV. Case Law and Notable Incidents
Note: Most cases during Taliban rule are not documented through formal judicial rulings but are reported through informal legal mechanisms, intelligence agency actions, and de facto court orders.
*Case 1: Mohammad Wali’s Arrest for Facebook Posts (2022)
Facts:
A university student in Herat, Wali posted criticism of Taliban education policies on Facebook.
He used a pseudonym, but was tracked via digital surveillance.
Outcome:
Detained for 2 weeks by the General Directorate of Intelligence (GDI).
Forced to publicly “apologize” on local TV.
Banned from internet access and suspended from university.
Significance:
Illustrates informal criminal liability for political expression online.
Demonstrates growing digital surveillance capacity.
**Case 2: Female Journalist Detained Over YouTube Channel (2023)
Facts:
A female journalist in Kabul operated a YouTube channel discussing women’s issues.
Videos were deemed “anti-Islamic” and “Western propaganda.”
Outcome:
Arrested by Taliban intelligence.
Her digital devices were confiscated; videos removed.
Released after 40 days under condition of ceasing public activity online.
Significance:
Shows how internet platforms are criminalized for promoting gender rights.
Highlights crackdown on women’s digital presence.
**Case 3: VPN Crackdown Case in Nangarhar (2022)
Facts:
A group of university students used VPNs to access blocked sites, including Western news.
One student shared a BBC Persian article critical of the regime in a Telegram group.
Outcome:
GDI tracked the group through Telegram infiltration.
Two students were imprisoned for “spreading propaganda.”
Others were subjected to warning and surveillance.
Significance:
Demonstrates Taliban’s technical surveillance and anti-VPN policy.
Criminalizes even passive consumption of banned content.
**Case 4: Tiktok Ban Enforcement and Arrest in Kandahar (2023)
Facts:
A young man created short Tiktok videos mocking Taliban officials and shared humorous content.
Videos gained popularity locally.
Outcome:
Arrested and beaten during detention.
Confession aired on local media; content deleted.
Taliban announced further bans on social media platforms.
Significance:
Humorous or entertainment content also falls under censorship.
Set a chilling precedent for digital satire.
**Case 5: Arrest of Activist for Messaging Foreign Journalists (2022)
Facts:
An Afghan activist communicated via WhatsApp with journalists abroad, sharing photos of protests.
Taliban accused him of “espionage” and “collaborating with enemy narratives.”
Outcome:
Held in undisclosed detention for nearly two months.
Released after tribal elders intervened.
Banned from using smartphones or leaving his province.
Significance:
Messaging and data-sharing across borders seen as a criminal act.
Undermines press freedom and digital expression.
V. Analysis: Taliban Justice and Internet Restrictions
| Principle/Issue | Taliban-Era Practice |
|---|---|
| Legal Procedure | Arbitrary detentions, lack of due process |
| Digital Surveillance | Widely employed; focus on Telegram, Facebook, WhatsApp |
| Freedom of Expression | Suppressed; online speech criminalized |
| Gender-based Discrimination | Women targeted disproportionately for digital content |
| Technology Use | VPN usage treated as subversion/crime |
| Punishment | Often extrajudicial: beatings, public shaming, bans |
VI. Conclusion
Under Taliban rule, the internet in Afghanistan has become a heavily controlled and dangerous space. Criminal liability for internet use often arises without formal trial or law. The Taliban’s de facto legal regime uses intelligence-driven enforcement, public shaming, and detention to silence digital expression, particularly targeting:
Youth
Women
Activists
Journalists
VPN users
Though not codified in traditional legal systems, these cases reveal an emerging pattern of digital authoritarianism rooted in ideological enforcement and political control.
RELATED Blog
0 comments