Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression exigencies of the situation”, and the derogation may not be discriminatory or inconsistent with a State’s other international law obligations.5 2.1.3. Obscenity Most countries place some sort of limit on the circulation of materials deemed to be obscene. At one level, this can involve restrictions designed to prevent minors from accessing this sort of material, such as requiring pornographic publications to be displayed in a way that ensures children cannot see their contents. In most countries, certain types of obscene materials are absolutely prohibited. Child pornography, for example, is almost always illegal but most countries go further than this and ban other kinds of obscene materials. Once again, the challenge is how to strike an appropriate balance with freedom of expression. States benefit from a certain latitude in deciding on how far to go in prohibiting certain obscene materials given that such materials are usually not political expressions, which attract greater protection under international human rights law, and given differing values in difficult societies regarding obscene content. Nevertheless, there are limits to how far States can legitimately go in restricting obscene materials, and it is certainly not legitimate to subject everyone to the whims of more prudish members of society. Indeed, the right to freedom of expression extends to information and ideas which shock and offend, as well as those that are widely accepted, and so in principle it protects sexually explicit materials which some might find offensive. The UN Human Rights Committee made an important comment on the scope of these sorts of restrictions in its 2011 General Comment No. 34: The Committee observed in general comment No. 22, that “the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; consequently, limitations... for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition”. Any such limitations must be understood in the light of universality of human rights and the principle of non-discrimination.6 2.1.4. Protection of the judiciary In many countries, criminal rules are in place which restrict freedom of expression with a view to protecting the integrity of the judicial process. These have two aims, namely, to ensure that the administration of justice is fair and operates without constraints and to protect the reputation of judges and/or the judiciary. Under the former category, one finds, among others, rules prohibiting the intimidation or biasing of witnesses, rules against perjury and ICCPR, note 2, Article 4(1). General Comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, 12 September 2011, CCPR/G/GC/34, para. 32, http://undocs.org/ccpr/c/gc/34. 5 6 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 6