Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia With respect to defamation and lèse majesté laws, criminal penalties should be removed entirely, and the defences of truth and fair comment – which protects the publication of information deemed in the interests of the public – must be provided for in the civil legal regimes governing these acts. Laws should also provide that they cannot be applied to punish untrue statements which were published in error but not with malice, and were shown to be in the interests of the public.580 The defence of “innocent dissemination” is also crucial with respect to the spread of information online – to protect “secondary” publishers who can show that they had “no actual knowledge” of an alleged offence, were not cognizant of any “circumstances to put them on notice” of an alleged offence, and “committed no negligence in failing to find out” about the offence.581 These defences should also apply in cases relating to national security, sedition and contempt of court, and cases which fall under laws regulating online information which extend criminalization of these offences to the online sphere. With respect to contempt of court, the defence of “innocent dissemination” also applies to protect information relating to a court case which was disseminated by a person, a journalist for example, who was unaware that the court case was still active at the time of dissemination.582 As offences of “spreading disinformation online” and “compromising cybersecurity” are relatively new, assessment of suitable and effective redress and accountability mechanisms for individuals alleged to have committed such offences would be well served by the establishment of independent and impartial committees – staffed with individuals who have ICT expertise as well as lawyers, academics and civil society who can assist in providing a human rights framing and analysis. Independent and impartial commissions could be proposed as a mechanism to assess and review executive or judicial decisions made under the new laws, and advise on the development of the legal framework itself. The defences of truth, fair comment and “innocent dissemination” can also be expanded to apply to individuals accused of “spreading disinformation online” or “compromising cybersecurity”. These commissions could interact with other regional or international mechanisms 580 CCPR/C/GC/34, para 47. 581 David Potts, ‘Defence of Innocent Dissemination at Common Law’, Available at: http://www. cyberlibel.com/?page_id=761; Referring to Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, SCC 45 (CanLII) [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427 at [89]. 582 See UK’s Law Commission clarifying this defence in the context of contempt of court cases in its ‘Law Commission Consultation Paper No 209: Contempt of court – Summary for non-specialists’, Available at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_ summary.pdf 151