BSR | Human Rights Impact Assessment: Facebook in Myanmar 17 northern Rakhine State.42 The same law was also used to convict five journalists who worked on an article about the construction of a military facility on land that had been confiscated from local farmers.43 The 1861 Penal Code is used against people who speak out against abuses perpetrated by the military.44 The laws are not necessarily clear, publicized, stable, and just; nor are they necessarily applied evenly; nor do they necessarily protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons or property. For example, vague terms used in Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law create risk for the arbitrary characterization of legitimate expression as threats or criminal offense. 45 This provision has increasingly been used by the current government to target journalists and limit freedom of expression online, and some individuals have been imprisoned for posting content on Facebook that is deemed insulting to the government or military.46 The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is not always clearly accessible, fair, or efficient. Civil society groups report being unaware of laws being drafted, and say that laws are adopted by Parliament without public consultation. This includes the 2017 Privacy Law and the forthcoming hate speech law. » The legal framework in Myanmar does not allow for the full realization of freedom of expression. The 2008 constitution, which is used as a basis for many other laws, does include guarantees for human rights and freedom of expression, but it fails to fully meet international standards and allows for the constitutional justification of many restrictive laws. For example, Article 354 provides the right to express and publish convictions and opinions, but qualifies that this right exists only when the views are not contrary to the laws of the country. The provisions are ambiguous, which means they can be interpreted differently on a case-by-case basis. Many laws do not uphold international legal and human rights norms, definitions, and standards on freedom of expression. For example, Myanmar has several laws that criminalize defamation, including the 1861 Penal Code, the 2004 Electronic Transactions Law, the 2013 Telecommunications Law, and the 2017 Privacy Law. International standards recommend the use of civil laws to regulate defamation and protect reputation, because criminal laws can be used to exploit the power of the state and silence legitimate criticism. Additionally, the 2017 Privacy Law falls below international standards (i.e., ICCPR guidelines, UN General Assembly) of the definition for privacy, and the 2015 Broadcasting Law fails to acknowledge and promote freedom of expression with respect to international standards and definitions. 47 The 1923 Official State Secrets Act violates international standards because there is no requirement that disclosed information “post a real risk of harm” and there are no defenses against prosecution. 48 Despite reform, the 2011 Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession Act fails to meet international 42 CNN, 2018. Human Rights Watch, 2018. 44 UN Special Rapporteur, 2018. 45 Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business, 2015. 46 Article 19, 2017 (b). 47 Global Information Society Watch, 2017. 48 Human Rights Watch, 2018. 43