Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression further, banning incitement to hatred on a number of other grounds, such as ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and so on. 3. The speech must incite others to one of the three results (see next point). It is clear from jurisprudence that this requires a close nexus between the speech in question and the result. A mere tendency or general risk of promoting the result is not enough. There must be a direct and high likelihood that the result will occur. 4. The speech must incite to one of three results, namely discrimination, hostility or violence. Two of these – discrimination and violence – are specific acts (with discrimination normally being defined in national law but generally involving the denial of services or benefits). The third – hostility – is a state of mind and so inherently harder to observe or monitor. However, it is clear that it is a very strong emotion, beyond mere prejudice or stereotyping. It seems likely that the word “hostility” was used to avoid repeating the word “hatred”, but that the intention was for this to represent a similar sort of intense emotion. 5. For the most part, "prohibited by law" has been understood as referring to a criminal law prohibition. However, civil and administrative law measures should also be considered in this area, such as codes of conduct for broadcasters and/or the right to bring a civil claim when one has suffered losses due to hate speech. 2.1.2. National Security/Public Order Protection of national security and public order are both interests that may come into conflict with freedom of expression. While it is legitimate to impose some restrictions on freedom of expression to protect these interests, at the same time they are often abused to unduly limit free speech. Laws restricting freedom of expression to protect national security go by a number of names, such as treason or sedition laws, State secrets laws, anti-terrorism laws and cyber security laws, among others. For all of these, it is essential to ensure that they are written and enforced in a manner which is compatible with international human rights law. The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, a set of principles on national security and freedom of expression adopted by a group of international experts, define a legitimate national security interest as follows: A restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to protect a country’s existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 4