{"id":960,"date":"2022-09-21T15:18:57","date_gmt":"2022-09-21T14:18:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?post_type=publication&p=960"},"modified":"2022-09-22T11:03:02","modified_gmt":"2022-09-22T10:03:02","slug":"advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Advocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Some commentators argue that the issues of advocacy of genocide or denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.  According to the 1948 Genocide Convention<\/a>, \u201cdirect and public incitement to commit genocide\u201d is a punishable act,[footnote]United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Resolution 260 (III) (1948), Art. 3.(accessible at: https:\/\/www.un.org\/en\/genocideprevention\/documents\/atrocity-crimes\/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] following the role of the media in perpetuating hatred against Jewish people in Germany and advocating for their extermination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, in Rwanda the media played a crucial role during the genocide in drumming up hatred and distributing propaganda, which led to the first prosecutions at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR<\/a>) for “direct and public incitement to commit genocide.”  In the same way as hate speech, incitement to genocide was defined as an inchoate crime, meaning it is not necessary for genocide to have actually occurred for the crime to have been committed, but it did require intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most notable case brought against journalists at the ICTR was Nahimana et al<\/em><\/a>, known as the Media Trial.[footnote]International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, (2003) (accessible at: https:\/\/unictr.irmct.org\/en\/cases\/ictr-99-52<\/a>).[\/footnote] Two of the respondents were the founders of a radio station that broadcast anti-Tutsi propaganda before the genocide and the names and licence plate numbers of intended victims during the genocide.[footnote]Media Defence, \u2018Training manual on digital rights and freedom of expression online, at p 57 (2020) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/resource-hub\/resources\/media-defence-training-manual-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/<\/a>).[\/footnote] They were convicted, among other things, of persecution, one of the acts which makes up crimes against humanity, for disseminating hate speech.[footnote]International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, (2003) (accessible at: https:\/\/unictr.irmct.org\/en\/cases\/ictr-99-52<\/a>) at para 1072.[\/footnote] <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Rome Statute<\/a> establishing the International Criminal Court also establishes the crime of incitement to genocide.[footnote]International Criminal Court, \u2018Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court\u2019 at articles 6, 25 and 33 (2002) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.icc-cpi.int\/resource-library\/documents\/rs-eng.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The genocide of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe was such a formative event in the creation of the European human rights system that Holocaust denial \u2014 claiming that the genocide did not occur \u2014 is an offence in several countries and is treated in a particular fashion within the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.[footnote]For example, see the case of Garaudy v. France<\/em>, Application No. 65831\/01 (2003) at the ECtHR.[\/footnote] These decisions reflect the particularly sensitive issue of the historical memory of the Holocaust in many European countries and the application of the European Court of Human Rights\u2019 \u2018margin of appreciation\u2019 doctrine, whereby Council of Europe member states are afforded some discretion on certain issues. However, from a principled perspective, Holocaust denial prohibitions raise human rights concerns. First, they may be considered discriminatory in that they single out a single genocide. Second, should engaging in revisionism amount to hate speech in a given context, it is unclear why dedicated genocide denial laws would be necessary to prosecute these offences instead of applying general hate speech provisions. And, should revisionism not amount to hate speech, it is very questionable whether it should be prohibited at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The growth of social media platforms has raised new concerns about the proliferation of incitement to genocide and other forms of hate speech.  Facebook has come under criticism for its role in allegedly fuelling the spread of hateful content against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar through its failure to take sufficiently effective measures to remove hateful posts, a situation partially caused by the company\u2019s having had insufficient numbers of moderators and fact-checkers familiar with the situation in Myanmar and proficient in Burmese.[footnote]See Letter of Notice from McCue Jury & Partners to Meta on behalf of the Rohingya community living in the United Kingdom and Bangladesh (2021) (accessible at: https:\/\/rohingya-data.s3.amazonaws.com\/attachments\/ckwunsg221v4vgir2r34oysu6-roh-00352-fac-cor-ipc-2021-12-06-letter-of-notice-vf-26.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] Another concern is Facebook\u2019s alleged role in amplifying hate speech through its algorithms, which prioritise sensational content.[footnote]Id. See also Global Witness, \u2018Algorithm of harm: Facebook amplified Myanmar military propaganda following coup\u2019 (2021) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.globalwitness.org\/en\/campaigns\/digital-threats\/algorithm-harm-facebook-amplified-myanmar-military-propaganda-following-coup\/<\/a>).[\/footnote] Facebook\u2019s role in the violence against the Rohingya was referenced in a report by a UN Human Rights Council-authorised fact finding mission on Myanmar:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

74.         The role of social media is significant. Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate, in a context where, for most users, Facebook is the Internet. Although improved in recent months, the response of Facebook has been slow and ineffective. The extent to which Facebook posts and messages have led to real-world discrimination and violence must be independently and thoroughly examined. The mission regrets that Facebook is unable to provide country-specific data about the spread of hate speech on its platform, which is imperative to assess the adequacy of its response.[footnote]UN Human Rights Council, \u2018Report of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar<\/a>\u2019, A\/HRC\/39\/64 (2018) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/hr-bodies\/hrc\/myanmar-ffm\/reportofthe-myanmar-ffm<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>UN Human Rights Council, \u2018Report of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar<\/a>\u2019, A\/HRC\/39\/64 (2018)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Facebook\u2019s role may come under judicial scrutiny because of class action filed in the US against Meta and a letter of notice filed in the United Kingdom by Rohingya refugees.[footnote]Ram Eachambadi, Jurist, \u2018US and UK Rohingya refugees sue Facebook alleging dissemination of \u201chateful and dangerous misinformation\u201d\u2019 (2021) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.jurist.org\/news\/2021\/12\/us-and-uk-rohingya-refugees-sue-facebook-alleging-dissemination-of-hateful-and-dangerous-misinformation\/<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Some commentators argue that the issues of advocacy of genocide or denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.  According to the 1948 Genocide Convention, \u201cdirect and public incitement to commit genocide\u201d is a punishable act,[footnote]United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":952,"menu_order":128,"template":"page-templates\/chapter.php","publication-category":[],"class_list":["post-960","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAdvocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases? | eReader<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Advocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases? | eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Some commentators argue that the issues of advocacy of genocide or denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.  According to the 1948 Genocide Convention, \u201cdirect and public incitement to commit genocide\u201d is a punishable act,[footnote]United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-09-22T10:03:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\\\/\",\"name\":\"Advocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases? | eReader\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-09-21T14:18:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-09-22T10:03:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Publications\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Modules on Litigating Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in South and Southeast Asia\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Module 6: Hate Speech\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":5,\"name\":\"Advocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\",\"name\":\"eReader\",\"description\":\"Media Defence\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Advocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases? | eReader","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Advocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases? | eReader","og_description":"Some commentators argue that the issues of advocacy of genocide or denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.  According to the 1948 Genocide Convention, \u201cdirect and public incitement to commit genocide\u201d is a punishable act,[footnote]United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/","og_site_name":"eReader","article_modified_time":"2022-09-22T10:03:02+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/","name":"Advocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases? | eReader","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-09-21T14:18:57+00:00","dateModified":"2022-09-22T10:03:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-genocide-or-holocaust-denial-special-cases\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Publications","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Modules on Litigating Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in South and Southeast Asia","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Module 6: Hate Speech","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-6-hate-speech\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Advocacy Genocide or Holocaust Denial: Special Cases?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/","name":"eReader","description":"Media Defence","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/952"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-category?post=960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}