Complicity of Social Media Companies in Inciting Genocide Hakim on them to “unite in order to eliminate what he termed the sole enemy: the accomplices of the Inkotanyi.”97 Akayesu also read aloud the names of those he purported to be accomplices.98 While the Inkotanyi was a particular militarypolitical faction of the Tutsis, the ICTR found, after hearing testimony on cultural and linguistic context, that “Akayesu himself was fully aware . . . that his call to fight against the accomplices of the Inkotanyi would be construed as a call to kill the Tutsi in general.”99 Akayesu was convicted of the crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, which the ICTR noted to be “distinct from the crime of genocide.”100 Importantly, in the Akayesu decision, the ICTR also elaborated the definition of incitement: [D]irect and public incitement must be defined for the purposes of interpreting Article 2(3)(c), as directly provoking the perpetrator(s) to commit genocide, whether through speeches, shouting or threats uttered in public places or at public gatherings, or through the sale or dissemination, offer for sale or display of written material or printed matter in public places or at public gatherings, or through the public display of placards or posters, or through any other means of audiovisual communication.101 The Court further held that directness must be considered “in light of its cultural and linguistic content,” noting that an implicit statement, like the one made by Akayesu, may be sufficient.102 While Akayesu established that the ICTR would punish incitement as a crime, the communication in that case was less analogous to the widely circulated publications in Streicher, where the incitements were part of a systematic campaign. On the other hand, in Nahimana, known widely as the Media Case, the ICTR considered the issue of national propaganda campaigns. The Media Case involved three defendants, including Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, and Hassan Ngeze—the purported “masterminds behind a media campaign to desensitize the Hutu population and incite them to murder the Tutsi population in Rwanda in 1994.”103 Nahimana and Barayagwiza together founded Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) and from 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR 96-4-T, Judgment, ¶ 673 (Sept. 2, 1998), http://perma.cc/ERW2-6RC7. Id. Id. Id. at ¶ 710. Id. at ¶ 559. Timmerman, supra note 57, at 841 (quoting Akayesu, Case No. ICTR 96-4-T at ¶ 557). Sophia Kagan, The “Media Case” Before the Rwanda Tribunal: The Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, THE HAGUE JUSTICE PORTAL (Apr. 24, 2008), http://perma.cc/7LT6-46J3. Summer 2020 97