Incitement to terrorism is a category in some national legal systems which may criminalize direct encouragement of acts of violence or praise for proscribed terrorist organizations. It was also prohibited by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 in 2005.
Legal scholars Daphne Barak-Erez and David Scharia have identified a difference in approach between European and United States laws criminalizing incitement to terrorism; the former tend to focus on the content of the speech and whether it supports terrorist violence, while the latter focuses on whether the speaker is linked to proscribed organizations. [1] The European approach involves explicit limits on freedom of speech, while the United States approach is more indirect. [2]
Incitement is an inchoate offense and is punishable even if no causal connection with a terror attack is proven. Merely establishing terrorism as a potential result of the speech is sufficient. [3]
One major motivation for criminalizing incitement to terrorism is its potential usefulness as an upstream prevention for deadly terror attacks. [4] Some experts even argue that incitement is a sine qua non for terrorist attacks. [5]
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624, unanimously adopted in 2005, is the first international legal instrument which deals with incitement to terrorism. [6] It was prompted by the 2005 London bombings. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1963 authorizes the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council to monitor the passage of laws criminalizing incitement to terrorism in member states. [7]
The Council of Europe adopted the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, also in 2005, which requires member countries to pass legislation to criminalize the "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence". [7] This does not cover apologia for terrorism. [8] Although the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of expression, incitement is not protected. In Zana v. Turkey , the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Mehdi Zana's free speech rights were not violated when he was punished by Turkey for calling PKK, a proscribed terrorist organization, a "national liberation movement". [9] In Leroy v. France , cartoonist Denis Leroy's conviction and fine for glorifying the September 11 attacks under French law was upheld by the ECHR. [10]
Article 24 of the Press Law of 1881 criminalizes the incitement and advocacy of terrorism, as well as apologia for terrorism. As of 2011 [update] , the penalty was up to five years imprisonment and/or a fine up to 45,000 euros. [11]
Barak-Erez and Scharia identify Israel as belonging to the European tradition, in part because of its legal system's origins in British law. [12]
The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, enacted in 1948, remains in force, and was for many years the primary provision criminalizing incitement to terrorism. This ordinance empowers the government to designate terrorist organizations and criminalizes being a member of or supporting such a group. [13] Section 4 of the ordinance states that:
A person who – (a) publishes, in writing or orally, words of praise, sympathy or encouragement for acts of violence calculated to cause death or injury to a person or for threats of such acts of violence; or (b) publishes, in writing or orally, words of praise or sympathy for or an appeal for aid or support of a terrorist organization . . . (g) commits an act that expresses identification with a terrorist organization or sympathy to it, by waving a flag, displaying a symbol or a slogan or reciting a hymn or a slogan or any similar overt act which clearly discloses identification or sympathy in a public place or in a manner that people who are present in public place can see or hear such an expression of identification or sympathy; shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds or to both such penalties. [13]
In Jabareen v. State of Israel , the Supreme Court of Israel found that the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance applied only to designated terrorist organizations rather than the promotion of acts of violence more generally. [14] Following this case, the Knesset replaced Section 4 with a new section, 144D2, which extends the prohibition to incitement of terrorist actions not connected to terrorist organizations. [15]
Article 18.1 of the Spanish Penal Code criminalizes provocation to commit any criminal offense and by extension apologia for criminal offenses. Organic Law No. 7/2000 [16] explicitly prohibits, with a penalty of one to two years' imprisonment:
...glorification or justification, through any form of public information or communication, of the offenses referred to in articles 571 to 577 [lower-alpha 1] refer to belonging hereof or of persons having participated in their perpetration, or the commission of acts tending to discredit, demean or humiliate the victims of terrorist offenses or their families... [17]
The Terrorism Act 2006 created the offence of encouragement to terrorism, [18] which prohibits "a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences." Indirect encouragement statements include "every statement which glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences". [19] However, they are only criminalized if the speaker intends to cause others to commit terrorist offences. [20]
Because of the First Amendment, incitement to terrorism or other forms of crime and unlawful violence is constitutionally protected free speech, unless it can be proven that the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "is likely to incite or produce such action". [21] However, in 2010 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project , the Supreme Court ruled that "a criminal prohibition on advocacy carried out in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization is constitutionally permissible". This is because such statements constitute material support for terrorism. Some defendants, including Javed Iqbal, who helped the Hezbollah TV station Al-Manar to broadcast, have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism under United States law. [22]
Incitement to terrorism offenses are considered by some to be an unjustified infringement of free speech rights, and it is argued that general encouragement of terrorism may be a political statement rather than literal encouragement to commit terrorist offenses. [23] However, some advocates of criminalization, such as Yaël Ronen, believe that it is possible and desirable to criminalize a definition of incitement to terrorism which does not excessively infringe freedom of speech. [24]
An assault is the illegal act of causing physical harm or unwanted physical contact to another person, or, in some legal definitions, the threat or attempt to do so. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in criminal prosecution, civil liability, or both. Additionally, assault is a criminal act in which a person intentionally causes fear of physical harm or offensive contact to another person. Assault can be committed with or without a weapon and can range from physical violence to threats of violence. Assault is frequently referred to as an attempt to commit battery, which is the deliberate use of physical force against another person. The deliberate inflicting of fear, apprehension, or terror is another definition of assault that can be found in several legal systems. Depending on the severity of the offense, assault may result in a fine, imprisonment, or even death.
A hate crime is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership of a certain social group or racial demographic.
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.
Intimidation is a legal wrong which usually involves deterring or coercing an individual by threat of violence. It is in various jurisdictions a crime and a civil wrong (tort). Intimidation is similar to menacing, coercion, terrorizing and assault in the traditional sense.
There is no universal agreement on the legal definition of terrorism, although there exists a consensus academic definition created by scholars.
A lone wolf attack, or lone actor attack, is a particular kind of mass murder, committed in a public setting by an individual who plans and commits the act on their own. In the United States, such attacks are usually committed with firearms. In other countries, knives are sometimes used to commit mass stabbings. Although definitions vary, most databases require a minimum of four victims for the event to be considered a mass murder.
In criminology, a political crime or political offence is an offence involving overt acts or omissions, which prejudice the interests of the state, its government, or the political system. It is to be distinguished from state crime, in which it is the states that break both their own criminal laws or public international law.
In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.
Volksverhetzung, in English "incitement to hatred", "incitement of popular hatred", "incitement of the masses", or "instigation of the people", is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.
Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred is a crime under the laws of several countries.
Suicide is a crime in some parts of the world. However, while suicide has been decriminalized in many western countries, the act is stigmatized and discouraged. In other contexts, suicide could be utilized as an extreme expression of liberty, as is exemplified by its usage as an expression of devout dissent towards perceived tyranny or injustice which occurred occasionally in cultures such as ancient Rome, medieval Japan, or today's Tibet Autonomous Region.
The Terrorism Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 30 March 2006, after being introduced on 12 October 2005. The Act creates new offences related to terrorism, and amends existing ones. The Act was drafted in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and some of its terms have proven to be highly controversial. The government considered the act a necessary response to an unparalleled terrorist threat; it has encountered opposition from those who feel that it is an undue imposition on civil liberties, and could increase the terrorism risk.
Anti-terrorism legislation are laws with the purpose of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The most recent amendment of the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has made it possible for the Union Government to designate individuals as terrorists without following any formal judicial process. UAPA is also known as the "Anti-terror law".
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), was a case decided in June 2010 by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Patriot Act's prohibition on providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations. The case, petitioned by United States Attorney General Eric Holder, represents one of only two times in First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has overcome strict scrutiny. The other is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar.
Encouraging or assisting a crime is itself a crime in English law, by virtue of the Serious Crime Act 2007. It is one of the inchoate offences of English law.
Yafim Weinstein was a 54-year-old Israeli man murdered in 2009.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 is a New York criminal law passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, that created a new section of the New York Penal Code for terrorism-related crimes, Article 490. The bill was introduced in a special session of the New York State Legislature on September 17, 2001. It was passed by overwhelming majorities of both houses and signed into law by Governor George Pataki the same day.
Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".