Thailand: Computer Crime Act, 2017 its capacity to operate should not be unduly restricted. In this regard, journalists should not be penalized for carrying out their legitimate activities. Moreover, the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information23 (Johannesburg Principles), a set of international standards developed by ARTICLE 19 and international freedom of expression experts, are instructive on restrictions on freedom of expression that seek to protect national security: Principle 2 states that restrictions sought to be justified on the ground of national security are illegitimate unless their genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force. The restriction cannot be a pretext for protecting the government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing, to conceal information about the functioning of its public institutions, or to entrench a particular ideology. Principle 15 states that a person may not be punished on national security grounds for disclosure of information if o the disclosure does not actually harm and is not likely to harm a legitimate national security interest, or o the public interest in knowing the information outweighs the harm from disclosure. Further, the Tschwane Principles on National Security and the Right to Information24 also consider extensively the types of restrictions that can be imposed on access to information. Online content regulation The above principles have been endorsed and further explained by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Special Rapporteur on FOE) in two reports in 2011.25 In the September 2011 report, the Special Rapporteur also clarified the scope of legitimate restrictions on different types of expression online.26 He also identified three different types of expression for the purposes of online regulation: expression that constitutes an offence under international law and can be prosecuted criminally; expression that is not criminally punishable but may justify a restriction and a civil suit; and expression that does not give rise to criminal or civil sanctions, but still raises concerns in terms of tolerance, civility and respect for others.27 In particular, the Special Rapporteur on FOE clarified that the only exceptional types of 23 Adopted on 1 October 1995. The Principles have been endorsed by the UN Special Rapporteur on FOE and have been referred to by the UN Commission on Human Rights in each of their annual resolutions on freedom of expression since 1996. 24 The Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information (Tschwane Principles), Open Society Justice Initiative, June 2013. 25 Reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, A17/27, 17 May 2011 and A/66/290, 10 August 2011. 26 Ibid, para. 18. 27 Ibid. ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Rd, London EC1R 3GA Page 9 of 24 www.article19.org +44 20 7324 2500