Myanmar: Digital Content Regulation the criminal law; criminal defamation laws cannot be justified as “necessary” given that civil laws provide adequate protection for reputation.12 At the very minimum, imprisonment should not be imposed as a sanction for defamation. According to the 2011 General Comment by the UN Human Rights Committee: States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.13 Indeed, remedies for defamation should always be proportionate, even in the case of civil defamation laws. A written retraction or apology or a small monetary pay-out will usually suffice to repair the harm to reputation, unless the plaintiff can show that he or she suffered real monetary losses, for example because of a direct impact on his or her business. Furthermore, according to international standards, public bodies should not be permitted to sue for defamation because free and open criticism of their work is an essential underpinning of democracy. While public officials have the right to bring defamation cases to protect their reputations, the fact that they hold public position of power means that they should be required to tolerate a greater degree of criticism than ordinary citizens. 3. The Electronic Transactions Law The main goal of Myanmar’s Electronic Transactions Law 200414 is to facilitate ecommerce, which is of course an important goal. However, some of its provisions also restrict digital content. Sections 33(a) and (b) provide for imprisonment of between 7 and 15 years for any person who uses electronic technology, respectively, to do “any act detrimental to the security of the State or prevalence of law and order or peace and tranquillity or national solidarity or national economy or national culture” or to engage in “receiving or sending and distributing any information relating to secrets of the security of the State or prevalence of law and order or community peace and tranquillity or national solidarity or national economy or national culture”. These provisions are highly problematical for a number of reasons. The overarching issue is that they are vastly overbroad. No definitions are included in the legislation which might narrow the scope of application of these provisions. This leaves terms such as “security of the State” and “prevalence of law and order” susceptible to a wide range of interpretations, some more legitimate than others. While it is, of course, legitimate to impose certain restrictions on free speech to protect national security and public order, criminalising all speech that may be deemed to be “detrimental” to these Joint Declaration of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, December 2002. Available at: www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=87&lID=1. 13 General Comment No. 34, 12 September 2011, CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 47. 14 30 April 2004. Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/undpadm/unpan041197.pdf. 12 -6-