Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression Under international human rights law, States should exercise due diligence to address attacks on journalists by State and non-State actors. A State’s positive obligations in these areas can be summarised as an obligation to prevent and protect, and, when attacks do occur, to investigate, prosecute and provide redress. These obligations extend to cyberspace, where States should take steps address online violence by private actors. However, any such efforts should be consistent with international standards and should be sufficiently well-tailored to ensure that any measures aiming to protect journalists are not instead abused to target journalism or unduly restrict freedom of expression. Examples of positive efforts States can undertake include engaging in educational campaigns on online violence, providing protective equipment to journalists who are at risk and training law enforcement on responding to online attacks. 3.2.2. Print Media In many countries, the print media are not subject to any special form of regulation, over and above the general rules which apply to the legal form in which they are established (such as a corporation). It is established that licensing of the print media, as with licensing of journalists, whereby one must apply for permission to establish a print media outlet, is not legitimate. Even technical registration systems for the print media are considered unnecessary and may be abused, and hence should be avoided. Such systems will only be legitimate where they meet certain conditions, namely: • • • • there is no discretion to refuse registration, once the requisite information has been provided; registration does not involve substantive conditions, other than that the name being proposed for the media outlet is not already being used; the process of registration is not excessively onerous; and the system is administered by a body which is independent of government. Rights of correction and reply, if appropriately framed, can provide redress against wrongs such as defamation and invasion of privacy which is less intrusive than the redress provided by the civil law and yet is somehow more effective (particularly for defamation, since these remedies directly address the misleading statement). Self-regulatory systems for providing these rights are preferable to statutory since they are less open to abuse. To conform to international standards, any mandatory rights of correction and reply must be appropriately circumscribed. Given that it is less intrusive, a right of correction should be the preferred remedy whenever it will effectively redress the wrong done. A right of reply should be provided only in the context of a breach of a legal right of the claimant which cannot be redressed through a correction. The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 16