6 Dictating the Internet: These frameworks commonly include vague, overbroad legal provisions; severe and disproportionate penalties; lack independent oversight mechanisms; and fail to provide effective remedy or accountability. Conceptions of “national security” and “public order” have been conflated with the perceived interests of the ruling government or other powerful interests to target specific expression. Emerging laws allow for extraterritorial application, and in some cases, seek to extend their reach beyond public expression, to private communications. These frameworks do not advance legitimate aims in accordance with the principles of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality required by the rule of law, in violation of international law. This report concludes by reasserting that international human rights law not only remains relevant, but that its application is needed, now more than ever in the digital age, to protect the exercise of rights online as well as offline. It calls for States in Southeast Asia to repeal, amend or otherwise rectify existing legal and regulatory frameworks to bring them in line with their international obligations. The report argues that respect for human rights is essential not only for ensuring that all members of the global community can fully enjoy and exercise their freedom of expression, opinion and information, but that legislation framed in human rights terms is also the best and most effective way to protect against the very real threats posed by the spread of hate speech, disinformation online, cyber-attacks and other cybercrimes.