Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 25
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- States often assert vague prohibitions on "advocacy of hatred" that do not amount to incitement under article 20 of the Covenant or meet the requirement of necessity under article 19 (3) thereof (see A/67/357). In an exchange with the Government of Pakistan, I raised concerns that recent legislation aims to limit "extremism" and "hate speech" without specifically defining either term. The Government responded as follows: "We firmly believe that for combating extremism, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, should be prohibited by law." While that statement accurately reflects article 20, the legislation itself would penalize the dissemination of information "that advances or is likely to advance inter-faith, sectarian or racial hatred", seemingly regardless of whether such dissemination constitutes incitement. European human rights law also fails to define hate speech adequately, a point emphasized in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó and Tsotsoria in the Delfi v. Estonia judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2015. The dissenting judges stated that even in the context of the prohibition of incitement, there is a very real risk that States will regulate online expression without demonstrating that the elements of incitement have been met in an online environment.
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Reference
- SR Freedom of Opinion, Report to the UNGA (2016), A/71/373, para. 25.
- Paragraph number
- 25
sorted by
Date added
57 relationships, 57 entities