Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security infrequently, while the European Court of Human Rights has an extensive jurisprudence on the topic. In this jurisprudence, the European Court has shown a greater willingness to accept restrictions on freedom of expression when combatting hate speech than the standards currently articulated under the other major human rights treaties. 28 One source of this more speech-restrictive approach is an “abuse of rights” provision in the European Convention on Human Rights.29 The Court has interpreted this provision to exclude from the protection of the right to freedom of expression certain kinds of hate speech which may destroy the “fundamental values” of the Convention, meaning that the three-part test does not apply.30 This is an exceptional approach in international human rights law, which normally protects all speech and then applies the three-part test to restrictions. Lawyers should be mindful of this distinct approach when referring to hate speech cases from the European system. Public Figures When hate speech is perpetrated by prominent public figures, it can be particularly harmful and may be more likely to incite hatred, discrimination or violence. Public figures typically have a larger audience than the average person and their words may be more influential. For this reason, the Rabat Plan considers the position and status of the speaker as one factor in its threshold test. The European Court of Human Rights has engaged in similar reasoning. For example, it accepted the legitimacy of a fine imposed on a famous football player who encouraged a crowd to chant a racist slogan, because the player should have been aware of the potential harmful impact of his behaviour given his fame and status as a role-model.31 Political leaders and public officials also have special responsibilities to avoid perpetrating hate speech. The obligations contained in the ICCPR extend to all branches of government at all levels, including executive, legislative and judicial, and national, regional and local. 32 Politicians and public officials should also avoid racist or discriminatory speech. CERD explicitly affirms this obligation, specifying that States “[s]hall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.”33 For a comparative discussion of this, see Evelyn Aswad and David Kaye, “Convergence & Conflict: Reflection on Global and Regional Human Rights Standards on Hate Speech”, Northwestern Journal of Human Rights, 7 July 2022, https://bit.ly/3zIhLLN. 29 4 November 1950, E.T.S. No. 5, in force 3 September 1953, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm. Article 17 states: “Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying … any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.” 30 For a summary of the kinds of hate speech excluded from protection, see European Court of Human Rights Press Unit, Factsheet – Hate Speech, June 2022, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/fs_hate_speech_eng.pdf. 31 Šimunić v. Croatia, 22 January 2019, Application No. 20373/17, para. 45, https://bit.ly/3EfoZtH. 32 Human Rights Council, General Comment No. 31, 29 March 2004, para. 4, https://bit.ly/3FTIPM3. 33 CERD, note 4, Article 4(c). 28 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 9