In October 2015 these fears became a reality when the authorities began charging individuals with “online defamation”. To date, at least six individuals have been charged with online defamation under Section 66(d) of the 2013 Telecommunications Law. Five of these cases are for social media posts considered as mocking the military, in particular the Army Commander-in-Chief. The charge carries up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of “extorting, coercing, restraining wrongfully, defaming, disturbing, causing undue influence or threatening to any person by using any Telecommunications Network”. Amnesty International notes that under international human rights law, the right to freedom of expression extends to “all forms of audio-visual as well as electronic and internet-based modes of expression”.132 Online defamation should therefore be treated in the same manner as defamation using other forms of communication. It should be a matter for civil litigation, not treated as a criminal matter, and should not be punished by terms of imprisonment. Moreover, Section 66(d) does not adequately define what actions would be considered “disturbing”, “causing undue influence” and “threatening”. Such imprecision carries the risk of its abusive and discriminatory application. PEACE ACTIVIST DETAINED FOR FACEBOOK POST MOCKING THE ARMY Patrick Kum Jaa Lee is a 43-year-old ethnic Kachin peace activist serving six months in prison after being found guilty of online defamation for a social media post mocking the head of the military. Patrick Kum Jaa Lee was arrested without a warrant at his home in Yangon on 14 October 2015 at around 7:30pm. Police told him that his arrest was in connection with an image he allegedly shared on Facebook showing an unidentified person stepping on a photograph of army Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. They claimed that he had commented above that post “Don’t share this post – if you do you will be arrested”. On 22 January 2016 he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment under Section 66(d) of the 2013 Telecommunications Act. He is currently in Yangon’s Insein prison. Patrick Kum Jaa Lee has suffered from multiple serious health problems in prison, including high blood pressure, gastroenteritis and chronic asthma. In October he was transferred to the intensive care unit in the prison hospital. The Hlaing Township Court has refused numerous requests from his lawyers for bail to be granted on the grounds of ill-health. The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that the mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties. Indeed, any public figure in any country, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state, government and other high ranking officials, is legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.133 Cases, such as that of Patrick Kum Jaa Lee, are a stark reminder that despite the reforms of recent years, peacefully criticizing, or even simply harmlessly mocking, the military is still very much off limits in Myanmar. The prosecution and imprisonment of activists under recently adopted laws like the 2013 Telecommunications Law illustrates how new laws in Myanmar, as well as longer-existing laws, can be used to stifle freedom of expression. Human rights defenders and political activists regularly rely on Facebook and other social media to share information and communicate. The threat of imprisonment for doing so can inhibit their online activities, and raises concerns that the authorities may, as the use of the digital sphere develops, be likewise moving the focus of their repression. Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, para. 12. 133 Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, para. 85. 132 NEW EXPRESSION MEETS OLD REPRESSION ENDING THE CYCLE OF POLITICAL ARRESTS AND IMPRISONMENT IN MYANMAR Amnesty International 41