Myanmar: Digital Content Regulation apply to individual social media posts). Pursuant to sections 25 and 26 of the Law, sanctions ranging from MKK 100,000 to 1,000,000 (approximately USD 73 to 730), as well as sanctions under other laws, may be imposed for breach of different parts of section 9. Although these are relatively modest penalties, they are still sanctions and would be imposed via court processes, which would be difficult for many media in Myanmar to pay for. Better practice in this area is not to create direct standards in a media law but instead to grant the oversight body, in this case the Myanmar Press Council (MPC), created by the Law, the power to elaborate its own, more detailed, standards for the news media in a code of conduct, and then to apply them via a self-run complaints system. This would provide redress to citizens who were harmed by unprofessional media reporting, while at the same time ensuring that, overall, the system was sensitive to the working reality of the media. Section 9(i) of the Law does provide that news media should respect any standards adopted by the MPC, but the rest of the section imposes direct restrictions on content. A number of the provisions in section 9 are unduly broad or limiting. For example, section 9(a) requires news media to ensure the accuracy and completeness of “every bit of information”. As anyone who has worked as a journalist will know, this is simply not realistic. Even the very best journalists sometimes make mistakes, taking into account their duty to report in a timely fashion in the public interest. A more appropriate standard is to require media to ensure due accuracy of the news. Section 9(c) calls on media to respect the presumption of innocence until someone has been convicted and to refrain from engaging in criticism which amounts to “contempt of court”. Under international law, while expression may be restricted to protect the rights of others, including the presumption of innocence, this does not mean that media cannot report on ongoing cases or even venture an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused person prior to the case being decided. It is only where this could be expected to bias the court – which should be only in the rarest of cases – that such reporting might be prohibited. It is also important to allow the media to report freely on the activities of judges and courts given that the judiciary represents a public institution which plays a key role in a democracy and the strong public interest in holding this institution to account. In their 2002 Joint Declaration, the special international mandates on freedom of expression stated: “Special restrictions on commenting on courts and judges cannot be justified; the judiciary play a key public role and, as such, must be subject to open public scrutiny.”29 Historically, contempt of court rules have failed to strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the need for open criticism of courts, on the one hand, and the need to protect the independence of the judiciary, on the other. 29 10 December 2002. Available at: http://www.osce.org/fom/66176. - 17 -