Legal Framework: An International Human Rights Approach to Addressing Hate Speech and Protecting Free Expression in Myanmar guidance on corporate behavior, which is also particularly relevant given the use of online platforms like Facebook to spread hate speech in Myanmar.583 Third, human rights documents have noted how hate speech frameworks have been consis- tently misapplied and even abused by governments. The Rabat Plan of Action stated presciently that there was unfortunately as stark “dichotomy of (1) non-prosecution of ‘real’ incitement cases and (2) persecution of minorities under the guise of domestic incitement laws seems to be pervasive.”584 In 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur noted: “Many Governments use ‘hate speech’, . . . to attack political enemies, non-believers, dissenters and critics” but fail to “address genuine harms, such as the kind resulting from speech that incites violence or discrimination against the vulnerable or the silencing of the marginalized.”585 Finally, the fact that hate speech frameworks have been so regularly misapplied also highlights the importance of independent judicial oversight given the need to balance rights, con- sider the local context, and prevent misapplication of the hate speech principles to suppress dissent and target vulnerable communities and the media.586 The sections that follow explore and analyze these above issues in the context of Myanmar. The first section outlines the underpinnings of the human rights framework relevant to hate speech, including prohibitions on incitement to genocide. The section also includes the key legal test for de- termining when criminalization is appropriate and articulates relevant non-legal tools that could help counter hate speech. The second section examines safeguards to prevent abuses of hate speech frameworks that instead suppress freedom of expression. This section emphasizes how the current lack of independent judiciary or any other body is an inherent flaw in the system at present. The final section addressing hate speech with regards to regulating corporate behavior, particularly drawing on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Ultimately, the human rights analysis is damning -- existing laws are overly broad and have resulted in selective targeting of voices that are critical of the government and the military, rather than providing much-needed accountability for state and non-state perpetrators of hate speech and the failure to counter hate speech has led to genocidal violence but also left a profound effect throughout the society, particularly on ethnic and religious minorities. A. Regulating and Combatting Hate Speech in Myanmar Despite the lack of a universally recognized definition for “hate speech,” human rights standards have emerged during the past decade on how to regulate and combat such speech. Hate speech includes a wide range of speech, including “illegal types of expression,” such as incitement to discrimination, hostility, violence, or genocide.587 Under international law, states are required to pro583 584 585 586 587 See, e.g., Rabat Plan of Action; Guiding Principles. Rabat Plan of Action, para. 27. A/74/846, para. 1; See also Rabat Plan of Action, para. 27. A/74/846. A/67/357, para. 2; See also A/66/290, paras. 26-30. 89