Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security Discussion Questions Hate Speech • What types of non-criminal measures to address hate speech might States adopt? Would any of these raise problems under the three-part test for restrictions on freedom of expression? • When politicians engage in hate speech, it has especially serious consequences, and may be more likely to incite violence. On the other hand, political speech must be specially protected and anti-hate speech laws should not be weaponised against political opponents. How can these concerns be reconciled? • This training did not focus specifically on online speech, but online hate speech is a serious problem in the modern era. Keeping in mind the relevant international law standards, what solutions to online hate speech might you recommend? Defamation • Consider the rules on civil defamation in your country. Do they provide for sufficient defences? How are burdens of proof allocated? Overall, do they appropriately balance protection of reputational interests with the right to freedom of expression? • Consider your own experiences representing clients in defamation cases or the major defamation cases in your country. Have they referred to international standards or international law obligations? Do you believe courts in your country are open to considering arguments based on international law? • What do you think of the “reasonable publication” defence? Would it be applied in a way that protected freedom of expression by courts in your country? Does it need to be more specific to serve in that role? • Would the provisions of anti-SLAPP rules described above be effective at combatting SLAPPs in your country? Would other measures be more impactful? National Security • What kinds of national security concerns can legitimately justify restrictions on freedom of expression? What are and are not valid national security threats? • What factors should courts consider when deciding if speech incites to violence? How can they assess the likelihood that violence will result and the strength of the causal link between the speech and the risk of harm? • Does your country have laws which criminalise extremism or glorification of terrorism? What are some alternatives to this? • It is reasonable to expect the authorities in your country – information officers, information commissioners, courts – to apply the “public interest override” (i.e. the standard that when the public interest in disclosing information outweighs the potential harm the information should be disclosed)? What measures might be necessary to ensure that public interest information gets disclosed? The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 38