Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression rules prohibiting the disruption of court proceedings. If appropriately phrased, these are legitimate. More controversial are rules designed to prevent the judiciary from criticism. In the past, such rules have been justified on the basis that there is a need to ensure respect for the judiciary so that citizens will accept their role as final arbiters of disputes in society. More recently, however, many States are finding that it is not necessary to prevent statements about the judiciary to this end. The judiciary and its members, like other public bodies and public officials, should not be shielded from critical commentary, which is important for accountability. Nevertheless, judges should retain the right to bring well-founded cases for defamation. 2.1.5. Blasphemy Laws Many States still have blasphemy laws, which protect religion against criticism, on the books, although these are problematic from a free speech perspective. In many countries, these laws are discriminatory, with only the main religion being protected. Almost all such laws discriminate against atheists and non-theists, and they are often used to repress religious minorities, dissenting believers, atheists and non-theists. The UN Human Rights Committee has indicated that blasphemy laws are only legitimate in the narrow context of “circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2” of the ICCPR, which pertains to hate speech and protects believers rather than religious ideas. The Committee also highlighted the illegitimacy of any blasphemy laws that discriminate in favour of or against certain belief systems or that “prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.”7 To best protect freedom of expression, blasphemy laws should be repealed in their entirety and States should rely instead solely on well-tailored hate speech laws. 2.1.6. False News Rules Some countries also have false news provisions, which criminalise the dissemination of false statements, per se, instead of only targeting false speech that causes certain kinds of harm, for example to the administration of justice (in the context of perjury), to reputations (in the case of defamation) or to electoral integrity (in the case of well-tailored prohibitions on misinformation about the voting process during election periods). Such general prohibitions are not legitimate (see below). In addition, to pass muster as a restriction on freedom of expression, a prohibition on false statements must, if criminal in nature, include an appropriate intent requirement. The absence of such a requirement risks imposing severe penalties on those who are not even aware that they are sharing incorrect information or who 7 Ibid., para. 51. The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 7