Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression fund public broadcasters through a direct public levy, for example on an electricity bill or based on television set ownership. It is also important that public broadcasters have a clear mandate set out in law, both to clarify what is expected of them and to provide for an accountability framework. The precise details of this mandate will depend on the country and context, but these broadcasters are normally expected to fulfil such functions as providing a comprehensive and quality news service, giving voice to and satisfying the information needs of all sectors of society, developing national culture and programming, and providing educational programming. 3.2.5. Digital Space The Internet does not have the same bandwidth limitations as television and radio broadcasting. As a result, the Internet is not a limited public resource and no legitimate justification exists for imposing licensing requirements on online speech. It may be legitimate to establish licensing or registration processes governing the means of distribution of Internet access (for example, through cable, satellite or mobile phone services). However, it is not appropriate to impose special licensing systems on Internet service providers or Internetbased communications services, above and beyond those that apply generally to telecommunications service providers. To be legitimate, restrictions on online speech should normally be content-specific rather than applying to whole websites or platforms. Mandatory blocking of entire websites, IP addresses, ports, network protocols or types of uses (such as social networking), as well as removal of webpages from servers, is an extreme measure that should be undertaken exceptionally and require authorisation from a judicial or other body which is not subject to political influences. Such measures are justifiable in only narrow circumstances, for example where they are necessary to protect children against sexual abuse. Decision-makers should publicise which sites they have blocked and the reasons for doing so. The act of disrupting or blocking access to Internet services and websites is a form of prior restraint, i.e. a type of action that prohibits speech or other forms of expression before they can take place. The justification of any such measure therefore comes with a heavy burden of justification under the three-part test for restrictions on freedom of expression. General Internet shutdowns for a given geographic area are inconsistent with international human rights law because they invariably fail to meet the requirement of necessity and are disproportionate. Consistently with the principle of ‘net neutrality’, States should refrain from and legislate against differential treatment of Internet traffic based on device, content, author, destination, or origin of data. States should also require Internet service providers to be transparent about their management of Internet traffic. The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 19