over online expression in Thailand.15 Even peaceful or humorous expression of opinion concerning the royalty is charged with lèse majesté, under Section 112 of the Penal Code. As the Thailand report notes, over a three-year period, over 90 people have been arrested on grounds of lèse majesté. In addition to lèse majesté, Thailand uses Section 116 of the Thai Penal Code to criminalise seditious express. Section 116 criminalises acts or expressions that seek to use force or violence to “bring about a change in the Laws of the Country or the Government,” or to raise unrest and disaffection among people to cause disturbance.16 Sedition charges have been filed against multiple people even without the presence of force or violence. While both these sections of the Thai Penal Code make no mention of the internet, they have been used to punish online expression. The Computer Crimes Act, 2007 specifically targets online activities. The Thai control over the internet and online activities is strong, and the many arrests and convictions stand witness to this. Following this introduction of the six states, the next section considers the common trends among the states where the criminalisation of online freedom of opinion and expression is concerned. Common trends among states in Unshackling Expression Among the six states that are part of Unshackling Expression, there are some commonalities. All these states either have laws that target cyberspace specifically (along with legal provisions that affect online speech), or they are moving towards such a law. All of these states also utilise offline laws to criminalise and punish online speech. Most of them also utilise multiple legal provisions to target and criminalise a single instance of online speech. They also prescribe harsher punishments for online “offences” than for offline speech. Towards cyber-specific laws It is a trend that can be seen across Asia that states are adopting laws that target cyberspace specifically. These laws not only describe the way in which the internet and electronic transactions are to be conducted, but they also create online offences and prescribe punishments. Many of these offences target online freedom of opinion and expression, and are relevant to our discussion. 15 Thai Penal Code. Section 112. https://www.thailandlawonline.com/ laws-in-thailand/thailand-criminal-law-text-translation#chapter-2 16 Thai Penal Code. Section 116. https://www.thailandlawonline.com/ laws-in-thailand/thailand-criminal-law-text-translation#chapter-2 Cambodia, for instance, has a cybercrime bill which has not yet been signed into law. Malware attacks in Cambodia have lent a sense of urgency to the need for a cybercrime law, with the private sector in the country pushing for the same.17 While the law has not yet been passed, several provisions of the bill have proved troubling for freedom of opinion and expression. For instance, as noted in the Cambodia report, the first draft of the law contained an article that outlawed content that could be “deemed damaging to the moral and cultural values of the society,” including “manipulation, defamation, and slanders.” In addition to the cybercrime bill, the Law on Tele­ communications governs online and networked spaces in Cambodia. The law, while outlawing any use of telecommunications networks which may result in “national insecurity”, also prescribes heavier penalties for Criminal Code offences. India has had a cyber legislation since the year 2000. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) (IT Act) specifically targets cyberspace. In addition to setting up a Computer Emergency Response Team, a Cyber Appellate Tribunal, a National Critical Infrastructure Protection Authority, etc., and setting out encryption standards, digital and electronic signatures, etc., the IT Act also sets out a series of offences and prescribes punishments. Several of these sections affect online speech, including provisions on the violation of privacy, pornographic material (characterised as obscenity), etc. In Malaysia, the Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998 (CMA) targets the internet. As the Malaysia report shows, the CMA sets out offences that affect online speech – the most notable being Section 233. Section 233 criminalises any online expression that is “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.” The Telecommunications Law and Electronic Transactions Law affect the internet in Myanmar. Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law, and Articles 33 and 34 of the Electronic Transactions Law, directly impact online speech. In Pakistan, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA) targets online speech. Section 34 of the PECA grants the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority the power to block or remove “unlawful online content”, while several other provisions in Chapter II of the law outline offences and punishments. Hate speech, the glorification of an offence, false information that harms the privacy or reputation of an individual, etc. are all criminalised. 17 Vannak, C. (2017, 3 July). Cybercrime law on the way. Khmer Times. www.khmertimeskh.com/news/39866/cybercrime-law-on-the-way Regional trends / 25