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]
A hate crime is crime where a perpetrator targets a victim because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group.
Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance. This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.
The Terrorism Act 2000 is the first of a number of general Terrorism Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It superseded and repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland Act 1996. It also replaced parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. The powers it provides the police have been controversial, leading to noted cases of alleged abuse, and to legal challenges in British and European courts. The stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Act have been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech or 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 behaviour and 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 consensus, scholarly or legal, on the definition of terrorism.
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 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.
An accessory is a person who assists, but does not actually participate, in the commission of a crime. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
Seditious libel is a criminal offence under common law of printing written material with seditious purpose – that is, the purpose of bringing contempt upon a political authority. It remains an offence in Canada but has been abolished in England and Wales.
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.
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 aimed at 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.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at the 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 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.
A blasphemy law is a law prohibiting blasphemy, which is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. According to Pew Research Center, about a quarter of the world's countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies as of 2014.
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.
Yafim Weinstein was a 54-year-old Israeli man murdered in 2009.
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".