98 Hate Speech Ignited: Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar defamation, interfering, undue influence, or intimidation using a telecommunications network”; and “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government.”670 Instead of using such overly broad terms, legislation must instead articulate precise language as “the risks that legal provisions prohibiting hate speech may be interpreted loosely and applied selectively by authorities” could lead to misapplication and abuses of the law.671 Furthermore, in order for a restriction to meet the legitimacy prong, a law should protect one or more specific legitimate interests including respect for the rights and reputation of others, national security, public order, and public health.672 The reputation of the military and government along with national security have often been raised by the Myanmar authorities, but the UN Human Rights Committee has said that “extreme care” must be taken by governments to ensure that provisions re- lating to national security are not excessively broad as to suppress public information of legitimate public interest or to prosecute journalists, activists, or researchers.673 Finally, the UN Human Rights Committee has said that a restriction must be demonstrated by the state as necessary to protect a le- gitimate interest and to be the least restrictive.674 In the cases that were discussed in Section III, there is no indication that the government of Myanmar pursued the least restrictive sanction, nor did they present why prosecutions was necessary and proportionate to the alleged offences.675 Instead, as Section III indicates, these broad laws and state power have been weaponized against civil society and journalists.676 CSOs and HRDs at the consultations and interviews reported that while ultranationalists like U Wirathu are free to incite violence and remain free, activists must contend with: lengthy pre-trial detentions, protracted long trials without bail, expensive monetary fines, being charged across different townships for one act of peaceful protest, and having to serve consecutive sentences as opposed to concurrent ones.677 The state has also deployed other powers to chill expression, including using surveillance and shutting down the internet which has affected more than a million people.678 Cumulatively, the number of cases and widespread accounts exemplify a pattern of abuse and the violation of human rights standards with regards to protecting expression.679 Furthermore, just as the laws themselves must meet a strict test, the application of any restric- tions must also meet a high threshold and remain the exception rather than the rule. Whether it be journalists reporting on war crimes, youth activists’ peacefully protesting, satirists performing plays, or Facebook posts in opposition to the military and government of Myanmar, none of these forms of expression meet the aforementioned high threshold of incitement or even the second category warranting civil or administrative sanctions.680 Nor do they create a climate of intolerance and diminish 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 Excerpts taken from various provisions and laws listed in Section III that have been used to prosecute the activities of CSOs and HRDs. See, e.g., Telecommunications Law, sec. 66(3), 68(a); Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession Law, sec. 19, 20; Penal Code, art. 124(a), 295(a), 499, 500, 505(b); Electronic Transactions Law, sec. 33, 34(d). A/67/357, para. 42. ICCPR, art. 19, sec. 3. CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 28. Ibid., paras. 33-34. See Shrinking Civil Society Case Study Box, 67-70. Ibid. FGD (January 2019 and December 2019). See Human Rights Watch, They Can Arrest You. Ibid. See generally Shrinking Civil Society Case Study Box, 67-70; Human Rights Watch, Dashed Hopes, 19-20, 27-28, 4144.