Myanmar: Digital Content Regulation Section 9(f) prohibits the publication of content subject to an intellectual property right without asking permission from the owner. While this is not a problematical provision per se, it does lack nuance. Much of the content that is protected by intellectual property may be reproduced and published by journalists without violating those intellectual property rights. For example, journalists have a right to quote from works and to engage in commentary and criticism regarding those works. This provision will probably be misunderstood by many journalists, and perhaps others, to suggest a blanket ban on reproducing any protected works. Section 9(g) is yet another defamation provision, providing: “[W]riting style which deliberately affects the reputation of a specific person or an organization or generates negative impact to the human right shall be avoided”. At one level, this can be seen as positive, inasmuch as it avoids the penalty of imprisonment for defamation that is provided for in the Penal Code and the other defamation rules described above. At the same time, it fails to provide for a proper regime for defamation, including defences and so on. This is a good example of where it would be far preferable to elaborate on the specifics in a code of conduct for the media adopted by the MPC. Section 9(h) provides: “Ways of writing which may inflame conflicts regarding nationality religion and race shall be avoided”. This provision falls within the purview of Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, which is the only provision in the ICCPR that actually requires States to prohibit certain speech, namely, “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. Article 20(2) imposes a clear requirement of intent to incite to discrimination, hostility or violence, as well as a requirement of a close and direct causal relationship between the impugned statement and these outcomes.30 Section 9(h) fails to require intent or a close causal relationship between the speech and the result – since it uses the term “may” to describe this relationship – and is, as a result, overly broad. This is again an area where a code of conduct approach would be far preferable. Recommendations: Ø Consideration should be given to removing all of the direct content rules from section 9 and instead providing for these to be elaborated in a code of conduct adopted by the MPC. The law could, however, indicate the types of issues that such a code would be required to address. The following recommendations represent a second-best alternative to this. Ø Section 9(a) should be amended to include a qualifier, such as “due regard to accuracy” rather than imposing an absolute requirement in this regard. Ø Section 9(c) should be amended to allow for free media reporting both on ongoing cases and the judiciary as an institution, except where this would really undermine the presumption of innocence or the independence and Centre For Law and Democracy and International Media Support, Briefing Note Series: Freedom of Expression (2014), pp. 34-5. Available at: http://www.law-democracy.org/live/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/Briefing-notes.full-version.Eng_.pdf. 30 - 18 -