Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security Council Resolutions, 135 some States have used terrorism threats to justify human rights abuses, including improper restrictions on freedom of expression. States should only criminalise incitement to terrorism and not insufficiently precise concepts such as “glorifying” or “justifying” terrorism. 136 These terms are too vague to meet the “provided by law” requirement. Criminalising support or involvement in terrorism is also insufficiently precise and subject to broad interpretations. 137 Laws which criminalise “extremism” or “radicalisation” are also likely to restrict freedom of expression unduly because the idea of extremism is “context dependent” and can easily be manipulated.138 Instead, prohibitions on incitement to terrorism should be defined precisely to focus on incitement to specific terrorist acts. The definition of terrorism has been a source of contention in international law and an agreed definition has not yet been reached. For the purposes of restrictions on freedom of expression, however, a key consideration is that terrorist offences should be linked to violent crimes and not to other concepts which could cover peaceful protest or expression of dissent. Furthermore, terrorism is more than an ordinary act of violence which should have as its purpose provoking terror or intimidation in a civilian population or compelling a government action. 139 The special international mandates on freedom of expression have indicated that the definition of terrorism in this context “should be restricted to violent crimes that are designed to advance an ideological, religious, political or organised criminal cause and to influence public authorities by inflicting terror on the public.”140 Other elements of the crime of incitement to terrorism should be clearly and narrowly defined. As with other incitement crimes, the crime should have a specific intent requirement and there should be a sufficiently clear nexus between the speech and the terrorist act, including an actual risk that the terrorist act will occur. The UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights has said that three conditions should be satisfied: See, for example, UN Security Council Resolution 1624, preamble (referencing Article 19 of the ICCPR); Resolution 1535, 26 March 2004, preamble, undocs.org/S/RES/1535(2004); and Resolution 2395(2017), 21 December 2017, preamble and para. 21, undocs.org/S/RES/2395(2017). 136 Special international mandates on freedom of expression, 2015 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Responses to Conflict Situations, para. 3(b), https://bit.ly/3DXlwyB. 137 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, 16 August 2006, para. 32, undocs.org/A/61/267. 138 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, 1 March 2019, para. 35, undocs.org/A/HRC/40/52; see also 2016 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Countering Violent Extremism, note 132, para. 2(c). 139 UN Security Council Resolution 1566, 8 October 2004, undocs.org/S/RES/1566(2004). 140 Special international mandates on freedom of expression, 2008 Joint Declaration on Defamation of Religions, and Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Extremism Legislation, https://bit.ly/3TpQAMZ. 135 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 30