Myanmar’s
decision to block access to ethnic news websites violates the right to freedom
of expression, ARTICLE 19 said today. Over the past two weeks, the Ministry of
Transport and Communications (‘MOTC’) has directed telecommunications operators
to block access to 221 websites, including those allegedly disseminating ‘fake
news’. The banned websites include ethnic media outlets Development Media
Group, Narinjara, and Karen News, as well as several Rohingya news sites. “The move to block ethnic news websites is a
drastic and unjustified step by the Myanmar government,” said Matthew Bugher,
ARTICLE 19’s Head of Asia Programme. “This is full-blown censorship of the kind
not seen in Myanmar since Aung San Suu Kyi’s government took office.” Approximately two weeks ago, the MOTC
directed telecommunications operators to block 207 websites that, according to
Myanmar authorities, contain adult content, depict child sexual abuse, or
contribute to misinformation. On 23 March, the MOTC ordered the operators to
block an additional 14 websites it accused of spreading ‘fake news’. While
Telenor initially resisted the order to block websites on the basis of their
alleged dissemination of ‘fake news’, all telecommunications operators have now
complied with the directives. The
government of Myanmar has not publicly disclosed the legal basis of the
directive, although Telenor has indicated that the government invoked section
77 of the Telecommunications Law. Section 77 of the Telecommunications Law
provides that the MOTC, ‘may, when an emergency situation arises to operate for
public interest, direct the licensee to suspend a Telecommunications Service,
to intercept, [or] not to operate any specific form of communication’. ARTICLE
19 has repeatedly called on the Myanmar government to amend the
Telecommunications Law to bring it into line with international human rights
law, and has raised specific concerns about section 77. The government has provided no explanation
regarding the ’emergency situation’ that justifies the use of section 77. It
has further failed to provide any information, justification, or analysis as to
why particular websites were included in its directive. However, Director
General of the Directorate of Communications U Myo Swe has stated generally
that the directive was in part in response to ‘fake news’ about COVID-19.
0 Comments