BSR | Human Rights Impact Assessment: Facebook in Myanmar 18 standards on freedom of expression and assembly by effectively making spontaneous protests unlawful and restricting the content and conduct of protestors.49 Legal provisions frequently use vague and inconsistent terms, and these are applied broadly to limit freedom of expression. For example, the Electronic Transactions Law criminalizes acts that threaten “security of state” and “community peace and tranquility” but does not define these terms.50 In Article 38, this prohibition is extended to anyone who “attempts to commit” any offence or “conspires” or “abets” in the commission of any offence under the law. This could extend to a social network on which critical views are expressed, and implies liability for telecommunications providers in the distribution of messages which are found to violate the law. In recent years, prosecutions for online activity have shifted to the 2013 Telecommunications Law, which uses broad terms such as material that is “disturbing” or material which causes “undue influence,” a term that could potentially apply to fiction, literature, and public essays.51 Article 68(a) also prohibits the “communications, reception, transmission, distribution or conveyance of incorrect information with dishonesty or participation,” and Article 73 applies the same penalty for anyone who abets in their commission, extending liability for issues like hate speech or false news to internet service providers or online platforms. » The wider regulatory context is complicated by laws that deepen cultural divides, religious discord, and intercommunal conflict by enabling systemic gender, ethnic, and religious discrimination. In Myanmar, social media platforms can indirectly act as a conduit for human rights violations and expose individuals to the abuse of their human rights by other individuals, organized groups, and the authorities. A suite of four problematic “race and religion protection” laws amplify this risk. Proposed by a conservative Buddhist nationalist organization, they were approved in Parliament in 2015, despite strong objections from civil society groups. These laws, when taken together, could result in the violation of a number of human rights and serve to embed harmful gender, ethnic, and religious stereotypes within the cultural psychology of the country. The laws have been widely criticized by national and international human rights defenders.52 The specific human rights implications associated with the race and religion protection laws are: 49 o The Buddhist Women’s Special Marriage Bill (2015) regulates the marriage of Buddhist women with men from another religion. Some of the provisions are not applied equally, are discriminatory toward non-Buddhist men, and in some instances are vague in meaning and therefore in contravention of international human rights norms. Article 24(g) allows for restrictions on the husband’s freedom of expression. Other articles in the law rely on harmful stereotypes of non-Buddhist men and sanction discrimination based on race and religion. o The Population Control Healthcare Bill (2015) contains clauses that could be used to infringe on human rights and discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity. A primary Free Expression Myanmar, 2017(a). Centre for Law and Democracy, 2017. 51 Ibid. 52 Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, 2015. 50