Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression have limited capacity to engage in fact checking, which is clearly disproportionate (and also fails to conform to standards relating to presumption of innocence). Accurate reporting is, of course, an important professional aspiration for journalists. At the same time, there are serious problems with blanket false news provisions, which unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. 8 They exert a chilling effect on journalists, who have a professional obligation to report in a timely manner on matters of public interest, and they may be abused to elevate widely held views to the status of ‘facts’ or to limit the expression of unpopular opinions. As the special rapporteurs for freedom of expression stated in their 2017 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda: General prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including “false news” or “non-objective information”, are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression, as set out in paragraph 1(a), and should be abolished.9 Should States establish units dedicated to combatting disinformation or misinformation, their mandates should be clearly defined with adequate guarantees of independence. It may be preferable for such units to focus on disseminating accurate information in order to counter disinformation or misinformation, but mandates may extend further, for example by providing for the possibility of working with online platforms to identify certain forms of harmful disinformation or misinformation (such as medical misinformation) to be tagged with warning labels. Strict rules should be in place to ensure that any power to mandate the correction of inaccurate information is consistent with the right to freedom of expression (which would allow for this only in very limited circumstances). In addition, States should, at all times, also refrain from propagating false information. 2.2. Civil Rules 2.2.1. Defamation Every State has in place some system of rules to prevent unwarranted attacks on reputation, otherwise known as defamation laws. An increasing number of countries are doing away with criminal defamation laws. Essentially, criminal defamation laws are not necessary because civil defamation laws are adequate to protect reputations. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Cameroon, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 116, November 1999, para. 24, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F7 9%2FAdd.116. 9 Adopted 3 March 2017, para. 2(a), https://www.law-democracy.org/live/legal-work/standard-setting/. 8 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 8