Myanmar: Digital Content Regulation responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights and reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. States may therefore only legitimately impose restrictions on digital content which are set out as clear legal rules, which pursue a legitimate aim and which are necessary to protect that aim. When States impose unduly restrictive measures to control content on the Internet – such as blocking websites or filtering content – this is analogous to seizing newspapers or blocking broadcasts, and it therefore represents a restriction on the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, extending regulatory measures designed for other communications mediums, such as newspapers or broadcasting, to the Internet does not provide adequate protection to the right to freedom of expression because the special nature of the Internet has to be taken into account when designing regulatory measures. As the special mandates stated in their 2011 Joint Declaration: Approaches to regulation developed for other means of communication – such as telephony or broadcasting – cannot simply be transferred to the Internet but, rather, need to be specifically designed for it. There are a number of special features of the Internet. These include, for example, that one can be anonymous online, which fosters open debate and unprecedented frankness. The Internet is also fully global in nature, so that it allows anyone to ‘speak to the world’ with very modest resources. It is also increasingly accessible, even to poorer citizens of the word. Importantly, the Internet also has the ability to support new, democratic public spaces for debate (virtual public squares). The importance of these spaces in a democracy needs to be taken into account when considering legal or regulatory measures which limit freedom of expression online. These same qualities, however, give rise to regulatory challenges such as difficult jurisdictional issues and questions about where the appropriate limits to free speech lie. This report focuses on rules in the legal framework of Myanmar which restrict the content which may be created and shared through digital communications tools. It analyses those rules based on international standards in this area and provides recommendations for reform where the rules fail to conform to those standards. The next section of this report outlines some key international standards regarding regulation of digital content, while the following sections evaluate various problematical content restrictions in the Electronic Transactions Law, Official Secrets Act, Telecommunications Law, News Media Law and Penal Code. In many cases, these provisions do not conform to international standards and, in those cases, we recommend that they be repealed or appropriately amended to bring them into line with minimum standards regarding the right to freedom of expression. -3-