Executive Summary Despite lacking a universally recognized definition for “hate speech,” human rights frameworks make clear that incitement to discrimination, hostility, violence, or genocide as examples of “illegal types of expression.” Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention states that “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” prohibits and criminalizes the most extreme form of hate speech. As a con- tracting party, Myanmar is obligated to uphold its duty to prohibit these types of hate speech, prevent and punish genocide. Given that freedom of expression is a fundamental right, however, any criminalization of speech must meet a high threshold. The Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred that Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence lays out six factors on whether particular speech may rise to the level of incitement warranting criminal- ization: context, speaker, intent, content and form, extent of the speech and likelihood/imminence of action against the targeted group. One only needs to examine the examples that has been provided in this report and elsewhere to see that hate speech in Myanmar has at times taken this most virulent form. Some hate speech has been designed to provoke, incite violence, discrimination and hatred that has in turn fueled violations of its ethnic and religious minority communities’ human rights and in the case of the Rohingya, it has enabled genocidal violence and atrocity crimes. Unfortunately, not a single domestic case has been brought against known disseminators of such hate speech. Instead, Myanmar’s domestic laws have been weaponized against HRDs and activists’ legitimate forms of speech. Human rights standards require that any restriction of legitimate expression must meet all three of the following conditions: 1) legality, 2) legitimacy, and 3) necessity and proportionality with the onus upon the state to justify the restriction rather than the individual claiming their right to expression. The law must be sufficiently precise to enable someone to regulate his or her conduct. It also requires that the law must be subject to regular legislative or administrative processes and should not confer unlimited discretion to the authorities. Ultimately in Myanmar, the broad laws, their misappli- cation, the complete lack of judicial independence, and abuse of state power have all infringed on the right to freedom of expression of numerous CSOs, HRDs, the media, and communities. While state and non-state actors have been able to spread hate speech, activists must contend with: lengthy pre-trial detentions, protracted long trials without bail, expensive monetary fines, being charged across dif- ferent townships for one act of protest, and having to serve consecutive sentences as opposed to concurrent ones. Myanmar needs to rectify these rights violations and not subject those expressing legitimate forms of speech to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions. Corporations and Hate Speech Under international law and standards, Myanmar also has an obligation to protect civilians from third party harms, including those involving corporations and hate speech. Myanmar has not done so. Despite Myanmar’s failure to regulate corporations, however, human rights standards state that corporations should take steps themselves to prevent contributing to human rights violations. Furthermore, companies who may be complicit in genocide or other gross human rights violations could 5