Legal Framework: An International Human Rights Approach to Addressing Hate Speech and Protecting Free Expression in Myanmar the rights of others.681 Indeed, by all indications, these forms of expression are legitimate speech and should be encouraged by the state rather than sanctioned.682 Ultimately, the broad laws, their misapplication, and abuse of state power have all infringed on the right to freedom of expression of numerous CSOs, HRDs, the media, and communities in Myanmar.683 Myanmar should rectify these rights violations and should not subject those expressing legitimate forms of speech to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions. A final word is in order regarding the rule of law and independence of judicial mechanisms in Myanmar given their importance in preventing the abuse of hate speech frameworks. Without proper judicial independence and the interpretation of the provisions contained in Myanmar’s laws, state authorities’ unfettered discretion has gone virtually unchecked inside the country.684 The Myanmar judiciary as well as other administrative and oversight bodies should be able to properly discern and accurately categorize the speech in question. Decades of military dictatorship have dismantled Myanmar’s judicial system, however.685 In fact, under the 2008 Constitution, the civilian courts have no oversight over the Tatmadaw and security forces’ conduct, which can only be reviewed by military tribunals.686 Judges have had little to no judicial independence nor have they been able to exercise discretion free of the Tatmadaw and government’s influence.687 The courts have instead been utilized to silence dissent and opposition critical of the military and government’s policies, enabling abuse and violations of CSOs and HRDs’ fundamental right to freedom of expression while incitement to violence, discrimination and even potential genocide by state and non-state perpetrators have not been held accountable.688 C. Corporations and Hate Speech International law and human rights principles, including those related to hate speech, are also rele- vant to business operations. For example, states must protect civilians from abuses perpetrated by third parties, including corporations.689 Companies are also expected to take steps themselves to prevent contributing to human rights violations.690 Companies who may be complicit in genocide or other gross human rights violations could be held accountable in some jurisdictions if they have con- tributed to abuses in a substantial way. Finally, human rights standards have also emerged specifically with regards to regulating corporate behavior and hate speech, including online platforms.691 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 Ibid. Ibid. See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, Dashed Hopes, 31-32. See, e.g., International Commission of Jurists, “Myanmar: Independence and Impartiality; Judicial Integrity and Accountability,” March 25, 2014, https://www.icj.org/cijlcountryprofiles/myanmar-introduction/judges/independence-and-impartiality-judicial-integrity-and-accountability/. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, HR/Pub/11/04 (2011), para. 1 [hereafter “Guiding Principles”]. Ibid., para. 13(b). See, e.g., Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, HR/Pub/11/04 (2011) [hereinafter “Guiding Principles”]. 99