The Computer Crimes Act, 2007 (CCA) is the law targeting the online space in Thailand. The Thailand report notes that, along with the Penal Code, the CCA is used to suppress and criminalise online expression. Section 14, which involves forged or false computer data, has been most used to criminalise online speech, including in cases involving defamation. Offline laws used to criminalise online speech Across Asia, states use offline laws to target and criminalise online speech and expression. The Penal Codes are most commonly used towards this end. The Indian Penal Code, the Malaysian Penal Code, the Myanmar Penal Code and the Pakistan Penal Code, remnants of the colonial era, are similar in content and structure. They codify offences against the state (for instance, sedition), hate speech (outraging religious feelings or blasphemy in Pakistan), obscenity and defamation. These are applied online as and when considered convenient, and individuals are arrested on the grounds of the above offences. While some states, such as Myanmar, have provisions against defamation codified in an internet-specific law,18 the offline laws are also used to target online speech in most states. Section 305 of the Cambodian Criminal Code targets defamation both offline and online, while also criminalising incitement to commit a crime (Article 495) and incitement to commit discrimination (Article 496). In Cambodia, it is not only the right to freedom of speech that suffers at the hands of these provisions, but also the right to political participation. In India, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the provision for sedition, is utilised to target online speech as well, as is Section 500, IPC, the provision on defamation. Sections 153A and 295A, IPC, the provisions concerning promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, etc., and outraging religious feelings, are also used against online speech and expression. Malaysia routinely uses provisions of the Sedition Act, 1948, and Sections 499 and 500 of the Malaysian Penal Code, in conjunction with Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, to criminalise online expression. Malaysia also applies Section 298 (“Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person”) of the Malaysian Penal Code to online speech. The same is true for Myanmar, where Section 295A (outraging religious feelings) is applied both offline and online, as is Section 124A (sedition). In addition to Section 10A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes 18 Telecommunications Law. Article 66(d). Act, 2016 (hate speech), Pakistan also applies the blasphemy provisions in the Penal Code to online speech and expression. Similarly, Thailand applies Penal Code Sections 112 (lèse majesté) and 116 (an offence against internal security) to both offline and online speech. Multiple legal provisions to target a single “offence” Case studies show that all the six states utilise multiple legal provisions to charge a single instance of online speech. In India, for example, Section 295A of the IPC (which criminalises acts or expression that outrages religious feelings) is often clubbed with Section 153A, IPC (promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, etc.), and when Section 66A of the IT Act was on the books, it was clubbed with that provision as well. In Malaysia, in instances involving sedition, the Malaysia report notes that individuals are often simultaneously booked under the Sedition Act, 1948 as well as the Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998. In Myanmar, Section 34(d) of the Electronic Transactions Law (“creating, modifying or altering of information or distributing of information [...] to be detrimental to the interest of or to lower the dignity of any organization or any person”) is clubbed with Section 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law (“Extorting, coercing, restraining wrongfully, defaming,” etc., using a telecommunications network), as well as Section 500 of the Myanmar Penal Code (defamation). In Pakistan as well, charges under the PECA are often clubbed with charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. In Thailand, while the Computer Crimes Act, 2007 makes no direct reference to defamation, the Thailand report notes that defamation under the Thai Penal Code has often been clubbed with Section 14(1) of the CCA. The effect of this clubbing is two-fold. First, an individual may be found guilty on one count, while acquitted on another. So this raises the chances of the individual’s conviction for an instance of speech and expression. Second, as the case studies from Thailand make clear, the clubbing of provisions also means that a higher punishment, combined on the basis of multiple charges, may be ordered on the individual. Harsher punishments for online offences The states that form part of this study have been found to grant harsher punishments for online offences than for their offline counterparts in some cases. Table 1 gives a bird’s eye view of some offences in which the online penalties are higher. 26 / Unshackling Expression