ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship Chilling Free Speech and Controlling Media: the 1950 Evidence Act, the PPPA, and the CMA Other laws include the 1950 Evidence Act and the prejudicial to or is likely to be prejudicial to public interest or national interest.” Any printing press or other media outlet is required to obtain a licence from the Ministry under Section 3.12 Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA). The While Section 3(3) of the CMA explicitly states that 2012 amendment to the 1950 Evidence Act holds “nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting individuals liable if they “facilitate” the publication the censorship of the Internet,” it includes several of the offending content, and holds the owner of the clauses which unduly restrict free expression and computer the content was published from liable, are incompatible with international human rights regardless of whether they are the author. Section law. Section 233 imposes a maximum of one year’s 114A creates a reverse onus clause, meaning that imprisonment and a fine for the use of network facilities an accused is presumed to be the publisher of or network service to transmit communications that illicit online content–including that of defamatory, are “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive seditious, or libellous nature–unless he or she proves in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten otherwise. This construction distorts evidentiary or harass another person.” Similarly, Section 211 processes (the processes in which the evidence is punishes “content applications service provider(s), recorded by the court) in cases initiated under other or other person(s) using a content applications laws such as the Communications and Multimedia service” for “providing content which is indecent, Act (CMA) and the Sedition Act. The PPPA provides obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character the government with unfettered powers to stifle press with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any freedom and disproportionately restrict the public’s person.” The broad criminalisation of online content right to access information. Under Section 7(1), the alongside the use of loose terms such as “indecent,” Minister of Home Affairs has the authority to ban “obscene,” “false,” “menacing,” or “offensive” affords media that is “in any manner prejudicial to or likely the authorities a wide discretionary margin to target to be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, government criticism or unpopular or controversial or which is likely to alarm public opinion, or which is opinions.13 11 or is likely to be contrary to any law or is otherwise Malaysia 153