ARTICLE-19-policy-on-prohibition-to-incitement

Executive summary
This <strong>ARTICLE</strong> <strong>19</strong> <strong>policy</strong> paper proposes a set of recommendations to be used for interpreting
and implementing those international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (“incitement” or “incitement to hatred”),
as mandated by Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(“ICCPR”). The recommendations also apply to some of the provisions contained in Article 4
of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”).
The interpretation and implementation
of these and other related provisions are
the subject of a great deal of confusion,
globally as well as nationally. This
confusion frequently results in vague and
overly broad prohibitions of incitement in
national law and also in inconsistent and
restrictive interpretation.
To dispel this confusion, <strong>ARTICLE</strong> <strong>19</strong> offers
a detailed set of recommendations on how
States should interpret their respective
obligations. With the aim of moving towards
greater consensus on this issue, it also
formulates a comprehensive test that can be
used to review cases and determine whether
certain speech reaches the threshold of
incitement to hatred.
<strong>ARTICLE</strong> <strong>19</strong> believes that the obligations
to prohibit incitement require States
to introduce a variety of measures as
sanctions in cases of incitement. The
selection of sanctions in a particular case
should be guided by an assessment of the
level of severity of the offence. In cases
of incitement, States should primarily
employ a range of sanctions within civil and
administrative law. Only in the most serious
cases, when the authorities conclude that
the particular incitement reached the
highest level of severity, should criminal
sanctions be imposed; criminal law should
not be the default response to instances of
incitement if less severe sanctions would
achieve the same effect. <strong>ARTICLE</strong> <strong>19</strong>
recommends other measures that States
should adopt in order to ensure uniform
and consistent implementation of their
obligations, as well as measures that should
be offered to victims of incitement.
<strong>ARTICLE</strong> <strong>19</strong> hopes that by establishing
clear boundaries between permissible
and impermissible expression, and by
providing robust criteria to assist in this
determination, this paper will serve the
purpose not only of a legal and <strong>policy</strong>
review but also of contributing to ensuring
that all people are able to enjoy both the
right to freedom of expression and the right
to equality.
1