D. Freedom of opinion and expression and of information 42. States should review legislation concerning freedom of opinion and expression and should repeal or amend any provisions that do not comply with relevant international human rights standards. These include provisions that impose undue restrictions for reasons of national security, public order and public health or morals beyond what is permissible under international standards. Laws or regulations that impose specific limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression by certain groups or professions, such as members of the armed forces or public servants, should also be reviewed to ensure their full compliance with international standards, i.e., that they fully meet the strict requirements of necessity and proportionality. 43. States should eliminate any vaguely-worded provisions in anti-terrorism or other national security legislation that may be open to arbitrary application in order to threaten, silence or imprison human rights defenders. They should also eliminate legislation that, for example, effectively prohibit advocacy against discrimination and intolerance; criminalize criticism of or disrespect for the government and public officials, as well as disrespect for state institutions or symbols; and other legal provisions that do not meet the strict requirement of necessity and proportionality under international law. They should respect that dissenting views may be expressed peacefully. 44. Similarly, criminal defamation laws should be repealed. Defamation and similar offences – including those committed online – should be dealt with exclusively under civil law. Criminal liability, including prison sentences, should be excluded for offences regarding the reputation of others such as libel and defamation. Civil laws regulating speech offences should not provide for disproportionate financial penalties or other undue requirements that would lead to self-censorship, endanger the functioning of or lead to the bankruptcy of an individual or media outlet. Access to information of public interest and whistleblowers 45. States should not impose undue limitations on the dissemination of information that in practice prevent human rights defenders from carrying out their work or providing services to their beneficiaries. 46. Furthermore, states should adopt and implement freedom of information legisla- tion that provides for effective and equal access to official documents, including by human rights defenders. They should also take proactive measures to ensure that the general public is aware of the existence of such legislation, its entitlement to access official documents and the specific procedures to request access. 47. Laws, regulations and practices concerning state secrecy should be reviewed and, where necessary, amended, so as to ensure that they do not unduly restrict access to information of public interest, including information relevant to past and present human rights abuses and crimes. Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 9