{"id":997,"date":"2022-09-21T17:37:16","date_gmt":"2022-09-21T16:37:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?post_type=publication&p=997"},"modified":"2022-09-22T11:17:14","modified_gmt":"2022-09-22T10:17:14","slug":"limiting-media-freedom-on-the-grounds-of-national-security","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-9-national-security\/limiting-media-freedom-on-the-grounds-of-national-security\/","title":{"rendered":"Limiting Media Freedom on the Grounds of National Security"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

International law only allows the right to freedom of expression to be limited on grounds of national security where this is explicitly provided by law and the restriction is necessary and proportionate in an open and democratic society. In practice, however, national security is one of the most problematic areas of interference with media freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One difficulty is the tendency on the part of many governments to assume that it is legitimate to curb all public discussion on national security issues. Yet, according to international standards, expressions may only be lawfully restricted if they threaten actual damage to national security and if the restriction is necessary and proportionate to countering this threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Mat Shuhaimi bin Shafiei v. Malaysia<\/em>,[footnote]Rayan Sivil No. W-01(A)-115-04\/2015 (2016), (accessible at: https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Mat-Shuhaimi-Shafiei-v-Kerajaan-Malaysia-Judgment-CoA.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] the Federal Court of Malaysia (the highest appellate court) ruled that a legislative provision criminalising sedition was unconstitutional after finding it to be a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression and inconsistent with a constitutional guarantee of equality under the law.  The sedition provision under review provided that the intention of the perpetrator was irrelevant.[footnote]Id.<\/em> at para 30.[\/footnote] The Court found this departure from general criminal law practice to constitute a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression, noting that even more \u201csocially abhorrent and heinous crimes\u201d included, at a minimum, a rebuttable presumption that shifted the burden to the accused to disprove intent, as opposed to wholly displacing mens rea<\/em> and creating a strict liability regime.[footnote]Id.<\/em> at para 40.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Johannesburg Principles<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In 1995, a group of international experts met to discuss the Johannesburg Principles on Freedom of Expression and National Security.[footnote]Article 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression, \u2018The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,\u2019 (1996) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.article19.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/joburg-principles.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] Although non-binding, these principles are frequently cited (notably by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression) as a progressive summary of standards in this area.  The Johannesburg Principles address the circumstances in which the right to freedom of expression might legitimately be limited on national security grounds, while also underlining the importance of the media, and freedom of expression and information, in ensuring accountability in the realm of national security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2013, a group of civil society organisations from across the globe \u2014 including some who were involved in the drafting of the Johannesburg Principles \u2014 published an updated version, focusing on access to information, known as the \u2018Tshwane Principles.\u2019[footnote]Open Society Justice Initiative, \u2018Understanding the Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information\u2019 (2013) (accessible at: https:\/\/fas.org\/sgp\/library\/tshwane-und.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] The Tshwane Principles state that:[footnote]Open Society Justice Initiative, \u2018The Tshwane Principles on National Security and the Right to Information: An Overview in 15 Points\u2019(accessible at: https:\/\/www.justiceinitiative.org\/publications\/tshwane-principles-national-security-and-right-information-overview-15-points#:~:text=Related%20Work-,The%20Tshwane%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to,and%20national%20law%20and%20practices<\/a>).[\/footnote] <\/p>\n\n\n\n