Myanmar: News Media and Printing and Publishing Enterprises Law Reforms Section 8 of the PPEL prohibits publishers and printers from disseminating several types of content. These broadly protect interests which may warrant imposing limitations on free speech, such as hate speech, national security, the rights and freedoms of others, obscene content and incitement to criminality or violence. However, like their NML counterparts, they are generally phrased in overly vague language. For example, they limit speech which can harm community peace and tranquillity, rather than limiting this to incitement to hatred, as is required by international law. Similarly, the definition of “obscene publication” is very unclear, incorporating terms such as “rude and abusive words and pictures”, as well as amorphous terms such as “shameless”, “fearless of sinning” and “unacceptable”. These terms are too subjective to provide publishers with any helpful guidance on what is or is not permissible and allow for discretionary application of the rules. Once again, these rules are also unnecessary because these issues are already addressed in the Penal Code and other laws. Another concern here is that these rules are often overbroad. For example, section 8 prohibits content which merely encourages crimes, violence, gambling or drug abuse, rather than being restricted to incitement to crime. This low threshold risks penalising humorous or satirical content, as well as valid public policy discussions about the current scope of criminal or other laws. International standards suggest that speech inciting illegal acts should only be restricted where there is specific intent to do harm and a close nexus to illegal conduct. As articulated by the Indian Supreme Court: The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far fetched. It should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression…. In other words, the expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a ‘spark in a powder keg’.13 In addition to the section 8 restrictions, section 11 restricts the ability of publishers to import or export publications. Such activities are not entirely banned, but importers and exporters are required to notify the Ministry of Information about the publication. In addition, if the publication is printed locally, the printer must submit the publication to the Ministry. These requirements are unnecessary – it is not clear why notification of export/import activities is necessary – and they operate as an indirect restriction on the publishing industry. Given the vague definitions of publications in the law, they may also improperly limit the sharing of informal or private written materials internationally. Recommended Integration and Reform Both laws currently contain content restrictions which are inappropriate both because they are already covered in other laws (i.e. because they are duplicative) and because they do not treat these complex issues in a sufficient nuanced manner that represents a fair balance between protecting freedom of expression and competing interests. Such direct content restrictions should be removed from any new law regulating the media. 13 S. Rangarajan v. P.J. Ram [1989](2), SCR 204, p. 226. The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy - 12 -