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

• History of clashes and conflicts over
resources between the audience to
whom the speech is targeted and the
targeted groups: Was the audience
suffering economic insecurity, e.g.
lacking in food, shelter, employment,
especially in comparison with its recent
past The issue of whether the audience
was fearful of further clashes should also
be examined. Fear might be objectively
reasonable or not; its impact may be
equally large and equally well exploited
by a compelling speaker.
• The legal framework, particularly applying
to anti-discrimination and freedom of
expression, but also to access to justice.
• The media landscape, in particular the
diversity and pluralism of the media in the
country. Issues to be examined include
censorship; the existence of barriers
to establishing media outlets; limits
to the independence of the media or
journalists; broad and unclear restrictions
on the content of what may be published
or broadcast; evidence of bias in the
application of these restrictions. Other
issues may include whether there is an
absence of criticism of government or
wide-ranging <strong>policy</strong> debate in the media
and other forms of communication; and
whether the audience has access to a
range of alternative and easily accessible
views and speeches.
Test Two: The speaker
The identity of the speaker or originator
of the communication, particularly their
position or status in society and their
standing or influence, should be analysed.
Issues to be considered include:
• The official position of the speaker –
whether he/she was in a position of
authority over the audience;
• The level of the speaker’s authority
or influence over the audience and
his/her charisma;
• Whether the statement was made by
a person in his/her official capacity,
in particular if this person carries out
particular functions.
<strong>ARTICLE</strong> <strong>19</strong> believes that special
consideration should be given to the
following categories of speakers:
• Politicians/prominent members of
political parties: It has been repeatedly
highlighted that politicians should refrain
from making public speeches which
can provoke intolerance. 65 International
jurisprudence has recognised that political
parties have the right to defend their
views in public, “although some of them
offend, shock or disturb a portion of the
population” but they should not do so
by “using words or attitudes vexatious
65
30 Venice Commission, op. cit.; Camden Principles, op. cit..