Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia to the internet is shut down. In the case of Manager Online, for example, criminal defamation charges led to a settlement where the news website was compelled to publish a “clarification statement” on its website. These could have negatively impacted upon the rights of academics, researchers or civil society representatives who reside outside of Thailand to receive accurate information regarding a case of torture or ill-treatment within the country. Similarly, in Myanmar, the internet shutdown in Rakhine and Chin states restricted access to information by individuals and lawmakers within townships as well as access by those working with humanitarian and human rights organizations who required such information to deliver necessary services. Extraterritorial reach not only increases risks of infringing the rights of individuals but also places obstacles and onerous requirements on authorities or corporate bodies in other jurisdictions that are implementing their obligations to protect free expression, opinion and information. Thus, Singapore’s POFMA, places burdens on internet access providers and internet intermediaries to limit any expression or information deemed in violation of the law as long as the end-user is situated in Singapore. These burdens are likely to not only impact ICT companies but also journalistic outlets. International news organizations have been subject to defamation proceedings and slapped with excessive fines for reporting on matters deemed to violate the law in Singapore. Vietnam’s LOCS, meanwhile, not only increases risks of infringement of the right to privacy of individuals through data localization in Vietnam but also places burdens on ICT companies to remove information from their platforms, which can impact on the rights of users of the platforms outside of Vietnam. States have the right to regulate ICT companies to ensure protections against rights violations online, but these regulations should not be drafted, interpreted or enforced in a manner which facilitates or enables rights violations. Information intended to be public vs. information intended to be private Previously clear distinctions between private and public communications have also been complicated by some of these legal frameworks. Posts or information shared on Facebook on “public” settings, for example, can be generally deemed to have been shared with an intention to make them public information,584 while messages shared between individuals via Whatsapp 584 Facebook, ‘What is public information on Facebook?’, Available at: https://www.facebook.com/ 153