Conflict of rights and interests

“In May 2019, the United Nations Secretary-General introduced the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, an influential campaign that poses serious risks to religious and political minorities because its definition of hate speech parallels elements common to blasphemy laws. U.N. human rights entities have denounced blasphemy laws because they are vague, broad, and prone to arbitrary enforcement, enabling the authorities to use them to attack religious minorities, political opponents, and people who have minority viewpoints. Likewise, the Strategy and Plan of Action’s definition of hate speech is ambiguous and relies entirely on subjective interpretation, opening the door to arbitrary and malicious accusations and prosecutions. The campaign gives cover to countries that want to continue their blasphemy laws—under the guise of banning hate speech—with the endorsement of the United Nations. Indeed, examples of enforcement of hate speech laws in Indonesia, Russia, North Macedonia, and Denmark reveal that countries use these laws, just as they use blasphemy laws, to punish the expression of minority viewpoints. This Article is the first to highlight the dangers posed to religious and political minorities by the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, which will only become more influential within the United Nations and across U.N. Member States the longer it is left unchecked. This Article shows human rights advocates and Member States that support minority rights why they must immediately denounce and call for the revocation of the campaign.”

"This paper is a contribution to a book published in Macedonia called the Black Book of Shame, which focuses on attempts by the powerful to silence the media and others using legal tools in the post-communist period. The paper outlines international standards regarding hate speech, with a particular focus on the constitutive elements of a crime of hate speech which is compatible with freedom of expression guarantees."

The objective of this infographic, designed collaboratively by Projek Dialog and ARTICLE 19, is to respond to the “growing demand for clear guidelines to identify ‘hate speech’” and to address the “challenges it poses to human rights”. The infographic primarily endeavours to generate an understanding about the following: 1) what hate speech is, 2) how hate speech which can be restricted can be identified in juxtaposition to protected speech, and 3) the positive measures States and other stakeholders need to take in order to produce a countervailing effect to hate speech. 

In 2011 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights organized expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. This document is Toby Mendel's contribution to the expert meeting held in Santiago, Chile.

Modern liberal-democratic nations are divided over whether the right to freedom of expression should extend to hate speech, which abuses, degrades, or promotes violence or discrimination against others based on traits like race, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Most liberal democracies outlaw certain forms of public hate speech in order to protect the dignity, equality, and security of the targeted groups. At the same time, the United States rejects this position and holds that public hate speech generally should receive constitutional protection.

This essay argues that bans on public and private hate speech can contradict liberal principles. It focuses on the writings of John Locke, which laid the theoretical foundations of the modern liberal state and addressed the problem of speech that denies the equal status and rights of others. Locke's thought offers a valuable starting point for considering how liberal principles should apply to hate speech.

This essay presents a theory of free expression based on liberal humanism, which argues that free speech is based on respect for human freedom and dignity, but does not entitle one to infringe on the rights of others. It uses this approach to grapple with the problem of hate speech, which may be restricted on the grounds that it violates the most basic right of all: the right to be recognized and treated as a human being and a member of the community. Locke argued that expression that sought to deny freedom and equality to religious minorities should not receive legal protection because it invaded its targets' rights and undermined society's foundations. The essay also responds to two of the leading liberal arguments against hate-speech bans: that they violate individual autonomy and undermine democratic legitimacy.

“We live in an era in which offensive speech is on the rise. Given its potential for harm, should this speech be banned? Nadine Strossen, professor of law at NYU School of Law and former president of the ACLU, dispels the many misunderstandings that have clouded the perpetual debates about “hate speech vs. free speech.” She argues that an expansive approach to the First Amendment is most effective at promoting democracy, equality, and societal harmony and that anti-hate speech laws are not effective in reducing the feared harms, and worse yet, are likely counterproductive by giving enforcement officials the power to suppress vital expression and target minority viewpoints. The solution, maintains Strossen, instead is to promote equality and societal harmony through vibrant “counterspeech”.”

In two segments of the MOOC created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Agnès Callamard focuses on a legitimate restriction to freedom of expression, the so-called incitement speech. In this first segment, Callamard first reviews the various provisions related to incitement speech, but also related to its close cousin, called hate speech. Because both provisions on incitement and hate speech, may be brought together under the same provision. Dr. Callamard discusses those various provision, what they mean, and their differences, if not contradiction. She then briefly discusses how regional convention and national systems have addressed incitement and hate speech, focusing in particular on the U.S. First Amendment. Dr. Callamard ends the segment by trying to make sense of this very difficult and imprecise area of law.

In two segments of the MOOC created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Agnès Callamard focuses on a legitimate restriction to freedom of expression, the so-called incitement speech. In this second segment, Dr. Agnes Callamard will first explain why it is a form of expression that is particularly egregious and dangerous as compared to other kinds of hate speech or extreme speech. Dr. Callamard will then highlight some of the key jurisprudence decisions related to incitement speech and to a lesser extent to some form of hate speech. And in conclusion, Dr. Callamard will extract from the jurisprudence some of the key element which are constitutive of incitement speech in order to ground the determination of whether or not we are dealing with incitement speech on firmer basis given the lack of precision and the contradiction of international provisions.

In 2011 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights organized expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. This document is Tad Stahnke's contribution to the expert meeting held in Santiago, Chile.

"Systematic monitoring of compliance by governments with commitments made in respect of protection of fundamental rights is an important part of ensuring that the necessary protections are indeed provided.  This paper discusses some issues related to monitoring in the context of an Africa regional workshop convened by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).  The workshop seeks to examine links between article 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) with regard to freedom of expression and incitement to hatred.  The objective is to improve the effectiveness of prohibitions of incitement to national, racial and religious hatred without derogating from the equally important right of freedom of expression."