Legal Framework: An International Human Rights Approach to Addressing Hate Speech and Protecting Free Expression in Myanmar explicitly states that “politicians, government and military officials and other public figures” are not to be exempt from hate speech rules given their prominence.728 According to the Special Rapporteur, a user violating a company’s hate speech policy could be subject to sanctions. He lists a wide range of options, including: [D]elete content, restrict its virality, label its origin, suspend the relevant user, suspend the organization sponsoring the content, develop ratings to highlight a person’s use of prohibited content, temporarily restrict content while a team is conducting a review, preclude users from monetizing their content, create friction in the sharing of content, affix warnings and labels to content, provide individuals with greater capacity to block other users, minimize the amplification of the content, interfere with bots and coordinated online mob behavior, adopt geolocated restrictions and even promote counter-messaging.729 Given the wide range of options, companies, like States, must utilize the least restrictive ap- proach that permits legitimate expression while restricting incitement and other forms of hate speech.730 Lastly, under the Guiding Principles third pillar, social companies have a responsibility to offer remedies.731 The Special Rapporteur stated that any remedial process must enable individuals the ability to report violations of hate speech policies; the company process should safeguard against retaliation, and allow people to respond and appeal a decision in a public manner.732 He further adds that company remedial policies could include education, permit counter speech, and direct engage- ment between the violating user making amends with those they harm.733 The Special Rapporteur further adds that while less serious forms of speech may be addressed by the aforementioned remedies, under the Rabat Plan of Action, those whose human rights have been violated by incitement have a right to criminal, civil, and non-judicial remedies and States are obligated to act and intervene on their behalf.734 The Case of Myanmar The case of Myanmar is unfortunately a paradigmatic example of how corporations can contribute to the infringement on rights. Given social media corporations reach and the significant role it occupies in Myanmar society and hate speech, the state and companies alike must regulate such speech, including incitement. Both must ensure that the persecution and atrocities committed upon the Rohingya and facilitated by rampant hate speech and culture of intolerance festered online must not continue. Unfortunately, Myanmar has failed again to uphold its human rights obligations. Rather than regulating corporate behavior and social media, the evidence indicates that the Myanmar authorities 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 A/74/486., para. 46. Ibid., para. 51. Ibid., para. 52. Guiding Principles, paras. 30-31. A/74/486., para. 53. Ibid., para. 54. Ibid., para. 55. 103