CGFoE filed written observations on freedom of expression and unprotected speech to the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The submission complements oral observations presented by CGFoE’s Associate Director, Dr. Hawley Johnson, during the online public consultation hosted by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for its upcoming thematic report.

New York, July 11, 2024 – Columbia Global Freedom of Expression (CGFoE) submitted written observations to the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in response to the call for expert inputs. Seeking to advance standards regarding the content and scope of Article 13.5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Office of the Special Rapporteur is working on a thematic report on the interaction between freedom of expression, equality, and non-discrimination of groups historically marginalized from public debate.

In the submitted observations, CGFoE reviews the main jurisprudential approaches – those of the United States, the European Court of Human Rights, South Africa, and the UN framework – to “hate speech” and similar expressions. CGFoE also addresses the question of whether Article 13.5 imposes an obligation to criminalize hate speech, calling attention to the experience of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with a similar provision under Article 4 of its Convention. Finally, CGFoE discusses the relevance and applicability of the UN Rabat Plan of Action, referencing several court cases that applied the six-part threshold test fully or partially.

The written submission complements the oral observations that Dr. Hawley Johnson, Associate Director at CGFoE, presented on July 8, 2024, during the online public consultation organized by the IACHR’s Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. “In addition to necessity and proportionality, any legal architecture on hate speech should strictly adhere to the principle of legality, which is not a mere formal requirement; on the contrary, it effectively requires clarity and precision of the rules limiting freedom of expression; in this context, ambiguity or vagueness could have a severe chilling effect on freedom of expression,” Dr. Johnson emphasized in her presentation. “The IACHR should urge States to foster a better environment for freedom of expression and should prevent the proliferation of hate speech regulations which have the potential to be instrumentalized by authoritarian governments against critical voices, dissenters, and the most vulnerable.”