Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression 2.4. Online Content States may legitimately impose certain new restrictions to address challenges unique to online speech target. The potential for information to spread particularly rapidly and widely through cyberspace presents certain novel challenges, such as in the context of spam, cyberbullying, ‘doxing’ (posting publicly online personal identifying information) and sharing intimate photos without the consent of their subject. Any efforts to combat online harms should be necessary (i.e. proportionate and not overbroad), in addition to being limited to challenges specific to cyberspace. For example, it is unnecessary to enact a law on defamation in cyberspace because defamatory online content would normally already fall under the scope of a defamation law of general application. Like all restrictions on freedom of expression, any measures taken to address online harms must also meet the three-part test contained in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR of being provided for by law, serving a legitimate interest, and being necessary to protect that interest. Any legislation on online harms should eschew imposing overly harsh sentences, especially in view of the need to avoid a ‘chilling effect’ that would hamper the ability of the Internet to fulfil its important role in fostering freedom of expression. For many online harms, often the best approach is to update existing legislative prohibitions, for example on stalking, harassment or invasions of privacy, to ensure they cover online content rather than introducing new prohibitions that often tend to be sweeping in scope or duplicative of existing rules. When not controlled by users, ex ante content restrictions are a form of prior censorship which is not generally permissible under international human rights law. Government-imposed content filtering systems that are not end-user controlled are impermissible restrictions on freedom of expression. However, in exceptional cases, certain content may be blocked, for example to block child pornography or hate speech inciting violence or genocide. Any exceptional blocking orders should be proportionate and carefully tailored to block only the targeted content and should be subject to adequate due process and judicial or quasi-judicial oversight. States should refrain from imposing strict liability on intermediaries (such as search engines, social networks or Internet service providers) for the content they host or transmit. Laws that require intermediaries to screen and remove content without sufficient procedural safeguards, including a requirement for a judicial or quasi-judicial order, raise significant human rights concerns. 3. Media Regulation The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 11