{"id":421,"date":"2024-06-26T02:33:22","date_gmt":"2024-06-26T01:33:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?post_type=publication&p=421"},"modified":"2024-06-26T02:33:24","modified_gmt":"2024-06-26T01:33:24","slug":"must-violence-or-hatred-actually-result","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/must-violence-or-hatred-actually-result\/","title":{"rendered":"Must Violence or Hatred Actually Result?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Another tenet of the Rabat Plan of Action threshold test is the likelihood and imminence of violence.[footnote]OHCHR above n 9.[\/footnote] Incitement, by definition, is an inchoate crime. The action advocated through incitement speech does not have to be committed for it to amount to a crime. Nevertheless, some degree of risk of resulting harm must be identified. This means that courts will have to determine that there was a reasonable probability that the speech would succeed in inciting actual action against the target group. Courts in different jurisdictions have differed on just how likely the harm needs to be to constitute a criminal act. For example, in South African Human Rights Commission v Khumalo<\/em><\/a>,[footnote]High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Case No. EQ6\/2016 (2018) (accessible at http:\/\/www.saflii.org\/za\/cases\/ZAGPJHC\/2018\/528.html).[\/footnote] the High Court of South Africa<\/strong> found that the respondent\u2019s utterances against white people were hate speech, despite the fact that there was no evidence of actual harm having been committed as a result of his statements, though they did clearly incite and advocate for violence.[footnote]South African Human Rights Commission, \u2018Media Statement: SAHRC Welcomes the Equality Court\u2019s Finding Against Velaphi Khumalo\u2019 (2018) (accessible at https:\/\/www.sahrc.org.za\/index.php\/sahrc-media\/news-2\/item\/1591-media-statement-sahrc-welcomes-the-equality-court-s-finding-against-velaphi-khumalo).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Online hate speech laws being used to stifle free speech<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Many African states are increasingly resorting to new online hate speech laws to curb the flood of mis- and disinformation that arrived with the advent of the internet and social media. For example, in 2020 Ethiopia <\/strong>enacted the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation<\/a> which, while having seemingly well-intentioned objectives, has been decried by civil society as a threat to freedom of expression and access to information online.[footnote]CIPESA, Edrine Wanyama, \u2018Ethiopia\u2019s New Hate Speech and Disinformation Law Weighs Heavily on Social Media Users and Internet Intermediaries\u2019 (2020) (accessible at https:\/\/cipesa.org\/2020\/07\/ethiopias-new-hate-speech-and-disinformation-law-weighs-heavily-on-social-media-users-and-internet-intermediaries\/).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often this is because of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n