grounds that individuals associated with those entities have been accused of cybercrimes. Cambodia primarily uses the justifications of state security, morality and political neutrality, among others, in order to criminalise speech. India India’s constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression to all its citizens.1 Legitimising reasonable restrictions, the constitution provides “interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence” as justifications.2 While the constitution makes no reference to the internet or communications, the right has been held as applicable to online speech.3 India has a long history of criminalising speech. The colonially drafted Indian Penal Code criminalises various kinds of expression, and includes offences relating to obscenity, hurting religious sentiments and uttering words to hurt religious feelings (broadly understood as hate speech), defamation and sedition, among others. While the Penal Code also makes no reference to the internet, its sections have been applied to online speech as well. From arrests of WhatsApp group administrators and Facebook users to charges of sedition and defamation, online speech is widely criminalised in India, as the India country report notes. In addition to the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) (IT Act) also includes provisions criminalising online speech. The IT Act targets cyberspace specifically, and includes provisions against obscenity, violation of privacy, etc. Prior to 2015, the IT Act also contained a provision criminalising the sending of messages that are “offensive” or are known to be false but are sent to cause “annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury [...],”4 but it was struck down as unconstitutional.5 Malaysia Malaysia has a long history of suppressing freedom of opinion and expression. Article 10 of the Malaysian constitution guarantees to citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression,6 with the exceptions being “the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence.”7 In addition to this, Article 149(1) of Malaysia’s constitution states that if the country passes a law fearing organised violence or any action disturbing public order, such a law is valid notwithstanding its divergence from Article 10. Despite the guarantee of freedom of expression, Malaysia criminalises a wide variety of expression, including online speech and expression. The Sedition Act, 1948, for instance, renders certain kinds of speech criminal and seditious, and may result in imprisonment of the speaker. Moreover, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, 2012 (SOSMA) criminalises the committing of (and attempt of ) activity “detrimental to parliamentary democracy,” and the publication and possession of publications detrimental to parliamentary democracy. The procedural sections of the law stipulate that a law enforcement officer can detain an individual for 24 hours under suspicion of offences, and for a further 28 days for the purposes of investigation. Particularly when it comes to internet speech, Malaysia utilises the provisions of the Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998 (CMA). The CMA has a broad range. For instance, Section 233 criminalises “any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.”8 The Malaysia report notes that in the year 2016 alone, over 180 instances of “social media abuse” have been recorded under Section 233. Myanmar Myanmar’s constitutional history is long and chequered. Its 2008 constitution, in Article 354, guarantees to citizens the right to “express and publish freely their convictions and opinions.”9 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 Constitution of India, 1950. Article 19(1). http://lawmin.nic.in/ olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm Constitution of India, 1950. Article 19(2). http://lawmin.nic.in/ olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. AIR 2015 SC 1524. Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 66A. http://meity.gov. in/content/information-technology-act-2000 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. AIR 2015 SC 1524. 8 9 Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Article 10(1)(a). www.agc.gov.my/ agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/FC/Federal%20Consti%20 (BI%20text).pdf Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Article 10(2)(a). www.agc. gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/FC/Federal%20 Consti%20(BI%20text).pdf Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998. Section 233. www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/mys/communications_ and_multimedia_act_html/Malaysia_Communications_and_ Multimedia_Act_1998.pdf Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2008. Article 354. http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs5/Myanmar_Constitution2008-en.pdf Regional trends / 23