Understanding international standards for online freedom of expression online expression, or through the creation of new laws specifically designed to criminalize expression on the internet. Such laws are often justified on the basis of protecting an individual’s reputation, national security or countering terrorism, but in practice are used to censor content that the Government and other powerful entities do not like or agree with.1 Geetha Hariharan In this report, Unshackling Expression, APC and its partner organisations study the state of freedom of expression on the internet in six Asian countries: Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan and Thailand. While the national reports provide an indepth study of the state of freedom of expression online in the six countries, a study of internet rights in Asia is incomplete without a preliminary study of the international standards for freedom of expression. International standards form the yardstick, the baseline, for national standards on freedom of expression – and are the standards to which national laws must adhere. The six countries that form part of this study also have protections for freedom of expression in their constitutions, and most of these states are parties to international human rights treaties, imbuing them with an obligation to protect and respect international standards for the protection of human rights. Unshackling Expression is a study of the criminalisation of and curbs placed on freedom of expression using laws and policies at the domestic level. A harsh measure, criminalisation affects the freedom of expression of people both directly and indirectly. Directly, it forms a clear, physical restraint on speakers who make their views known online. Indirectly, it causes a chilling effect on citizens, often resulting in self-censorship, leading to a less diverse and more conformative cyberspace. Further, restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression adversely affect the right to “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” In a 2011 report to the UN Human Rights Council, former UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, states: [L]egitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States’ international human rights obligations, whether it is through the application of existing criminal laws to Freedom of expression is particularly crucial when it comes to the internet. Offline, one may have multiple ways of expressing oneself, but online, publication and participation are the first acts. All exercise of freedom of expression online begins with the act of publication – whether it be a publication of views through writing, posts, comments, messages or tweets, or through the use of visual, video or audio content. As such, any restriction on online content becomes a harsh restraint on freedom of expression, and none more so than the criminalisation of content or other forms of expression. Not only this, but in Asia in particular, there are several trends that are problematic to the free use of the internet. In this chapter, we consider the international standards that define freedom of expression, and in particular, freedom of expression online, and also take a look at the regional standards established by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). International standards on freedom of speech and expression online The history of the right of freedom of speech and expression precedes the internet. It finds its beginnings in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As a binding treaty, the ICCPR has more value in international law. The UDHR and ICCPR guarantee certain inalienable rights to 1 La Rue, F. (2011). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. A/HRC/17/27. https://www.un.org/ga/ search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/17/27 18 / Unshackling Expression

Select target paragraph3