Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia Finally, the internet today has emerged as the primary arena in which States today contend with global companies, particularly big technological companies, for political influence, power and control – gradually edging out the voices and concerns of individuals in the process. States’ obligations to protect security today no longer fall purely under the authority of the State, and increasingly require collaboration with and limitations on the operations of big technological companies to give effect to the State’s aims. In 2017, the government of Denmark became the first country in the world to post an Ambassador to the tech industry, in an attempt to represent the nation’s interests at Silicon Valley and influence the effects of technology on its society. As Ambassador Casper Kynge, observed, “(o)ur values, our institutions, democracy, human rights … are being challenged right now because of the emergence of new technologies … These companies have moved from being companies with commercial interests to actually becoming de facto foreign policy actors.” Within this contemporary dynamic, rights are at risk of erosion not only by States but also by companies operating on a global level. The protection of human rights in the 21st century requires the development of international legal and regulatory frameworks which must involve States in full consultation with the UN and other, international authorities, along with legal, human rights and ICT experts. This will best be achieved with the engagement of technological companies who operate on a global level. Protection of human rights online is required not only for freedom of expression and information to be protected online but also for protection of rights against threats posed by the spread of hate speech, incitement to violence and disinformation online, cyber-attacks and other cybercrimes. The international human rights framework governing freedom of expression and information remains crucially relevant today and provides more than sufficient guidance with respect to the legal frameworks covered in this report and their misuse by governments in Southeast Asia to clamp down on the fundamental freedoms of individuals. These legal frameworks have been shown to be less than fit for purpose in various ways, and do not advance legitimate aims in accordance with the principles of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality required by the rule of law. They should be repealed, amended or otherwise rectified to be brought in line with international human rights principles governing freedom of expression, opinion and information, towards fulfilling States’ obligations under international human rights law. 161