A/73/362 interests, by arguing that a [religious or belief] group is engaged in political activities that endanger public safety and order”. 16 46. Moreover, specific limitations based on national security concerns are permissible in relation to freedom of expression, subject to their compliance with the limitations regime stipulated by international human rights law. 17 Such restrictions have also been used to indirectly restrict freedom of religion or belief, trying to circumvent the safeguards that exist to protect it. For instance, the criminalization of vaguely defined types of speech such as “hate speech” 18 risks the arbitrary application of such laws to issues related to religion or belief. The consequences of arbitrarily criminalizing some forms of speech with a religious element as “hate speech” can result in severe consequences, even potentially leading to imprisonment for non-violent acts. Application of the law in this way, therefore, results in an indirect discrimination against one’s right to freedom of religion or belief. This includes laws criminalizing apostasy and blasphemy, which may not only constitute restrictions to freedom of religion or belief, but also infringe on the right to freedom of expression. 19 Anti-apostasy/anti-blasphemy laws 47. Shorn of direct links to acts of violence, the tendency to characterize certain manifestations of religion or belief as “extremist” or a “threat to public order” include the activities of missionaries or others who seek new converts to their faith. Law s on apostasy or blasphemy, which are often framed as “anti-incitement legislation”, exist in at least 69 States, and reflect the idea that the expression of certain views within a society may create “discontent”, subvert “national unity” or undermine public order and public safety (see A/72/365, para. 27). In some jurisdictions, anti-terrorism legislation targets newer religious communities and is being used to generate cases of alleged blasphemy offenses in counter-terrorism courts. 48. The role that the Internet has played in the recruitment or radicalization of individuals has led many States to adopt a combination of repressive legislative measures to block, filter and ban specific content or entire websites. Security considerations are often claimed as the legal basis for the existence and implementation of such laws and actions. Despite the argument of some States that the intended goal of such laws is the improvement of “social harmony” as well as safeguarding security, in actual fact such measures often undermine the safety and equality of individuals adhering to different faiths (ibid.). In some cases, mechanisms have been set up to identify and refer content to Internet and social media companies for removal. 20 In other cases, anti-blasphemy and anti-apostasy laws are used to prosecute opinions or beliefs expressed in online forums. __________________ 16 17 18 19 20 18-14697 Donna Sullivan, “Advancing the freedom of religion or belief through the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Religious Intolerance and Discrimination ”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 82, No. 3 (1988). Article 19, The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (London, 1996). Available at www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/ joburgprinciples.pdf. International law permits the criminalizing of hate speech only where it amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, as stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 20, para. 2. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, para. 48. See, for example, European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), “Internet referral unit to combat terrorist and violent extremist propaganda ”, press release, 1 July 2015. 13/22