LAHORE - Restriction on putting across the objectionable material through SMS, in the majority view is an appreciable step, yet the punishment of 14 years of jail has been termed too much and disproportionate to the guilt. Reacting to that much quantum of punishment, lawyers in particular are of the view that the offence of sending objectionable SMS has been equated with murder or with any heinous non-bailable offence, which is not justified. Presently the number of mobile users in the country touches around 65million and the largest number of them are laymen including students, workers, farmers, shopkeepers, hawkers, daily wagers, skilled people, women, housewives, so and so forth. Their level of education and understanding of things vary in relation to the living conditions, area, family system, occupation or social engagement, etc. For a number of them use of SMS through cell phone is also a big means of entertainment and a good pastime, which is guided by their level of education, liking or disliking in society. In this view, the said punishment is too heavy which, if implemented, may be counterproductive instead of serving the purpose of putting a check on communicating the objectionable, noxious and opprobrium contents through the misuse of SMS. Constitutionally speaking, Article 19 provides for freedom of expression as a fundamental right which however has to be governed by legal restrictions so as it is not misused against anyone. When this is applied to the use of SMS, it would be difficult to decipher whether an unsavoury message received from anyone is the expression of the recipient and in that event, how would the legal restrictions be applied to him. A number of messages come from other countries and application of this restriction to them is another question. Freedom of expression in the present day has got very vast meaning so much so that some material which was highly hurting to the sentiments of the Muslims all over the world, was published by some European papers but a large chunk of Western world, disregard to that, justified the publication under theme of freedom of expression. In Britain and other parts of the world, such spots have been located where people go and vent their pent-up fury and rage and in return, they avoid running amok on the street. The West accepts this freedom to open up the society and to turn its face to discussions and debate on issues. And we also would not like to cultivate a society which remains mum and quiet on issues but a vibrant and an alive one. But at the same time, we have to protect respect and dignity of the others thus no one can be let scandalize others or play with the vital interests of the country. In the national budget, the government imposed tax of ps 20 on SMS which it, however, withdrew partly owing to public pressure and partly, as per reports, in order to guard the commercial interests of the mobile service companies. After that the idea of severely punishing the senders of wrong message, is a something which have given strength to the public feelings about the intentions of the authorities. Now the best course, as stated by the majority in a survey, is to debate on this issue in the Parliament which represents the whole population of the country and contains all shades of out national life. Anything coming out of the Parliament after debate would indeed be acceptable to the masses also.