UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/UN%20Strategy%20and%20Plan%20of%20Action%20on%20Hate%20Speech%2018%20June%20SYNOPSIS.pdf
Rather than prohibiting hate speech as such, international law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (referred to here as ‘incitement’). Incitement is a very dangerous form of speech, because it explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence, which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes. Hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement is not something that international law requires States to prohibit.
Convening relevant actors When relevant to the context, the UN should support convening of key actors; reframe problems in ways that make solutions more attainable; introduce independent mediation and expertise; and build coalitions.
Engaging with new and traditional media The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression
Using technology UN entities should keep up with technological innovation and encourage more research on the relationship between the misuse of the Internet and social media for spreading hate speech and the factors that drive individuals towards violence.
https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2023-02/UNDP-DFS-Stepping-Forward-Parliaments-in-the-Fight-Against-Hate-Speech.pdf Whilst disinformation is distinct from hate speech, it can have a symbiotic relationship with or reinforcing effect on its emergence. Disinformation can be seen as a driver of hate speech, which is often deployed as part of a concerted strategy to target or radicalize groups and individuals and lay the groundwork for hate speech, incitement to violence and actual violence.
Criminalizing Hate Speech: Perhaps the most forceful, but possibly the most complex and sensitive measure from a human rights perspective that a legislature can take against hate speech is to make it a crime. However, as the Human Rights Committee General Comment 34 of 2022 and the 2012 Rabat Plan of Action make clear, criminalization of expression should only be considered as a “last resort.” Other measures, including public statements by leaders, education and intercultural dialogue, should be considered first. Expression should be subject to criminal prosecution only if it meets a threshold of seriousness based on the following six variables:
1. social and political context of the speech;
2. status of the speaker;
3. intent to incite an audience towards a targeted group;
4. content and form of the speech;
5. extent of dissemination and;
6. likelihood of harm, including imminence
One-pager on “incitement to hatred” https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Opinion/SeminarRabat/Rabat_threshold_test.pdf
OHCHR and freedom of expression vs incitement to hatred: the Rabat Plan of Action https://www.ohchr.org/en/freedom-of-expression
The Rabat Plan notes with concern that perpetrators of incidents, which indeed reach the threshold of article 20 of the ICCPR, are not prosecuted and punished. At the same time,members of minorities are de facto persecuted, with a chilling effect on others, through the abuse of vague domestic legislation, jurisprudence and policies.
Political and religious leaders should refrain from using any incitement to hatred, but they also have a crucial role to play in speaking out firmly and promptly against hate speech and should make clear that violence can never be tolerated as a response to incitement to hatred https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf