Myanmar: News Media and Printing and Publishing Enterprises Law Reforms journalism-like activities (sometimes referred to as “acts of journalism”). The right to express oneself through journalistic activities should not be restricted to those who are formally recognised as professional journalists and, positively, the Law does not prevent nonprofessionals from engaging in such work. However, while the rights of non-professionals to engage in journalistic activities should be protected, they should not be expected or required to comply with professional standards designed for the formal media sector, which may be unrealistic for amateur writers.9 The NML appears to impose the same professional media obligations on everyone who falls within their broad definition of news media workers. The problem of overbreadth is of particular concern when it comes to online means of communication, since the definitions in the Law also define content disseminated over the Internet as a form of news media content. The Internet enables a vast range of means of sharing content, including content which could be deemed to be news, of which only part can properly be considered to be media content and subjected to the professional standards which apply to the news media. As currently worded, the NML would cover online blogs, social media activities and other informal uses of the Internet. Printing and Publishing Enterprises Law The PPEL also uses broadly defined terms. For example, section 2 defines a “publication” to include manuscripts, printed material, electronic material and other material having a similar visible form. Since a publisher is anyone who makes a publication, this definition arguably covers anyone who writes almost any document. Similarly, a “printer” is any owner of a “printing press”, which is defined in a way which would cover printers used in places such as households, schools, non-profit organisations, banks and law offices. This potentially broad scope is somewhat constrained by section 23, which partially exempts certain publications from the scope of the law, such as specified publications by foreign, intergovernmental, civil society, academic and charitable organisations. However, the listed exceptions only apply to some provisions of the Law and notably not to the prohibitions on publication of certain content (discussed further below). A better approach would be to use precise, narrowly drawn definitions in the first place. For example, the PPEL creates an exception for announcements and invitations for social occasions and bereavement ceremonies but numerous other private printing activities would not be covered by this exception. Furthermore, the very inclusion of printers does not align with the objectives of the Law which include promoting the development of the printing and publishing sector while preserving freedom of expression. Printers do not necessarily generate content themselves or engage in media or journalistic activities and yet the PPEL forces them to screen the material written by their clients for compliance with its rules. This imposes an inappropriate regulatory 9 An excellent discussion of the justifications for this may be found in a case decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, 13 November 1985, Series A, No. 5. Available at: http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_05_ing.pdf. The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -3-