On the offensive

Abstract

Few human rights issues provoke stronger debate than the question of whether, and to what extent, freedom of expression principles protect so-called 'hate speech' Human Rights Watch was prompted to initiate a study of 'hate speech' and freedom i of expression by a number of events, including a resurgence of nationalist and anti-Semitic incidents in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and by an intense i debate in the USA over whether 'hate i speech' provisions in disciplinary codes adopted by a number of colleges and, universities violate constitutional safeguards of free speech. The term 'hate speech' used in its policy paper, excerpted here, encompasses not just oral remarks, but any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities, and to women. The Human Rights Watch policy statement on protection of 'hate speech' that emerged from its study is based on four key principles: A distinction between advocacy and action. Expression should never be punished for its subject matter alone. To punish speech, there must be a direct and immediate connection to illegal action. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bars incitement to 'discrimination, hostility or violence'. Human Rights Watch defines those terms as unlawful conduct. Any limitations on expression should be the least restrictive available.