Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia (a) Existing legal frameworks i. Laws which aim to protect the reputation of legal persons Laws advanced to protect the reputation of legal persons against defamation – both civil and criminal – have been misused throughout the region to curtail freedom of expression and information online. This section examines how defamation provisions in Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines have been used to shield the State and other powerful actors from criticism and may impose criminal and hefty civil penalties on individuals in contravention of international human rights law and standards. As indicated above, freedom of expression is protected under article 19 of the ICCPR. In clarifying the scope of that protection and the permissibility of State limitations on it, the UN Human Rights Committee has stressed that States that provide for criminal liability for defamation should decriminalize defamation and that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty” as it is neither necessary nor proportionate towards the aim of protecting the reputation of others.112 Civil penalties, meanwhile, must not be “excessively punitive”, must comply strictly with the principles of necessity and proportionality, and must be adjudicated expeditiously before an independent and impartial judicial authority in line with an individual’s right to fair trial.113The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has similarly clarified that penalties imposed in cases of defamation should never be “so large as to exert a chilling effect on freedom of opinion and expression and the right to seek, receive and impart information”, and that “penal sanctions should never be applied”.114 The UN Human Rights Committee has further clarified that expression of opinions made with respect to public figures, including critical expressions, must be protected. Thus, authorities should refrain from sanctioning “untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice”, and a public interest defence should should be available to those against whom a defamation case has been brought.115 112 CCPR/C/GC/34, para 47; UN Human Rights Committee, Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola, Communication No. 1128/2002, CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002 (2005), para. 3.9, Available at: https:// www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/1128-2002.html 113 CCPR/C/GC/34, para 47. 114 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Abid Hussain, 29 January 1999, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/64, para. 28(h). 115 CCPR/C/GC/34, para 47. 43