In addition to the risk that an end user’s exercise of legitimate expression or opinion will be criminalised, ICT companies – telecommunications companies, network service providers, online publishing platforms, amongst others – may also be at risk of facilitating the allegedly criminal conduct by its users on their networks or platforms. Governmentissued telecommunications service licenses are required for any entity to become a service provider (s5). Licensees are subject to suspension or termination of licenses for failure to comply with a broad set of conditions, which can include requests from Government concerning the blockage or restriction of content deemed criminal (s57). This could create a perverse incentive for ICT companies to contribute to the arbitrary criminalisation of legitimate expression in order to maintain their legal license to operate. In particular:  The definition of “network service provider” includes any “service for carrying information two ways by any means of tele-communication” [s3(h)], meaning ICT companies are subject to these licensing risks.  Even if the companies are not explicitly mentioned in relevant laws, language referring to the “distribution” or “dissemination” of prohibited speech could be construed as “abetting” the allegedly criminal behaviour, and subject to the same punishment (s73).  The provision prohibiting “connecting, receiving, transmitting, distributing or handing out false information dishonestly” may also implicate ICT companies transmitting content (s68(a)).  In general, the above provisions could also be used to compel ICT company to comply with Government requests to arbitrarily block or filter user content (see below). Arbitrary blocking or filtering of content The 2013 Telecommunications Law also provides legal capacity for the Myanmar Government to potentially block or filter user content selectively and arbitrarily (see Table 13). The law enables the Government, without clear oversight, to “prohibit a specific type of communication,” if doing so is “in the interest of the public” – a very broadly worded and vague standard. Table 13: Provisions of the 2013 Telecommunications Law with Potential to be used to Arbitrarily Block or Filter User Content  The Government may, “when the situation arises to carry out in the interest of the public, with the approval of the government, direct the licensee to suspend the telecommunications service provider business, prohibit a specific type of communication, to block and hold [and] to temporarily control and use the telecommunications service provider businesses and telecommunications equipment.” (s77) As above, because licensees are subject to suspension or termination of licenses (s5) for failure to comply with a broad set of conditions (s57), there may be strong incentive for ICT companies to take action to block or filter content to avoid revocation of their license, creating a risk of contributing to Government actions in violation of freedom of expression and opinion. In particular: CHAPTER 2: ICT GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, POLICIES & LEGAL FRAMEWORK 73 2