4 4.2 of discrimination based on colour, language, political or other opinion and national origin are not prohibited. Moreover, Article 349 applies only to Myanmar citizens. Several laws in Myanmar provide for broad and vague restrictions of the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly (see Chapter 4.1 on Freedom of Expression) that could be used to block such incitement. These are, however, problematic because they can also be used to restrict far wider types of expression. There are widespread concerns globally that governments use prohibition on incitement to prohibit much wider types of expression, using often vaguely defined national laws that opens the door for arbitrary application of these laws. 300 Sections 295(A), 298, 504, and 505 of the Myanmar Penal Code, covers "[a]cts or words which intentionally cause outrage or wound religious feelings" and "[s]tatements or insults which intentionally provokes a breach of the peace or causes public mischief." While these provisions have some overlap with Article 20 of the ICCPR, they cover a much wider set of issues than incitement to hatred and therefore are not sufficiently targeted to meet the legal tests set out in international human rights law to be considered legitimate restrictions of freedom of expression. 301 Phrases like “causing public mischief” can be used to justify suppression of politically problematic speech i.e. the type of speech that is protected under international human rights law to ensure open and vibrant democratic debate. The right to freedom of expression is intended to protect speech that may create “outrage” among some, to ensure governments do not become the sole arbiter of opinion and expression. B. Field Research Findings Methodology In February-March 2015 IHRB/MCRB undertook qualitative research on social media in Myanmar by conducting a short monitoring survey. While by no means a comprehensive study, it aimed to provide a snapshot of the current atmosphere on social media in Myanmar to gain some contextual understanding of this relatively new issue of hate speech and provide useful observations and recommendations as part of this broader ICT SWIA. This short study drew on the authoritative work of Professor Susan Benesch of the Dangerous Speech Project. 302 The ‘Dangerous Speech’ Framework Academics have noted particular characteristics of speech that rise dramatically before an outbreak of mass violence. There have been efforts to test the direct correlation between such speech and subsequent acts, whatever the means of communication. 303 While such 300 OHCHR, “Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred that Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence” (2012), para 15. See also, OHCHR, “Concept Paper on OHCHR’s Expert Workshops on the Prohibition of Incitement to National, Racial or Religious Hatred” (2011). 301 Article 19(3) of the ICCPR provides any restrictions must pass a three-part, cumulative test: be provided for in national law which is clear and accessible to everyone (principle of legal certainty, predictability and transparency); have a legitimate aim or purpose i.e. one of the purposes set out in Article 19.3 (principle of legitimacy); and must be necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, meaning that the restrictions must the least restrictive means required and justifiable (principles of necessity and proportionality). 302 See: http://www.dangerousspeech.org/ 303 See David Yanagizawa, “Propaganda and Conflict: Theory and Evidence from the Rwandan Genocide” (2012). A statistical study shows that killings were 65-77% higher in villages that received the Radio Television 144 PAGE CHAPTER 4.2: HATE SPEECH