A/73/362 49. Since 2012, accusations of online blasphemy have risen, and new threats and patterns of violence have emerged. 21 Individuals using the Internet to disseminate views considered blasphemous are increasingly facing arrest and prosecution. The arrests are often capricious, creating an atmosphere of fear in which Internet users are unsure of the boundaries within which their rights can be exercised. Alarmingly, online speech, usually expressed through social media websites, can also lead to offline mob violence (ibid., para. 31). The securitization of online activity has provided a wide margin of operation for national authorities without proper scrutiny. 50. One particular case is that of a blogger who has been imprisoned since January 2014 after being convicted of apostasy for criticising caste -based discrimination. 22 Similarly, in 2015 a court sentenced a poet to death for apostasy stemming from his reportedly obscene comments about religious figures and the State, but also for passing around a book he wrote that promoted atheism and unbelief. 23 There is also an intrusion of national security concerns into this specific field, which is illustrated by the fact that some apostasy trials are conducted in the same manner as trials regarding threats to national security. 24 There are also cases where people are charged under anti-blasphemy laws (even for activities on social media and/or for engagement in conversations on a social network) and such trials are conducted in counter terrorism courts. 51. The Special Rapporteur notes that any effort to prevent terrorist radicalization on the Internet (such as regulating, filtering or blocking online content deemed to be illegal under international law) should follow international human rights standards so as to avoid unlawfully impacting on the freedom of expression and the free flow of information. As stressed by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, content restrictions must always meet the tests of legality, necessity, legitimacy, proportionality and non-discrimination, and must be subject to due process (see A/HRC/38/35, para. 66). These measures should not be used to target dissent and critical speech. 52. Governments have also focused on groups and individuals that exploit freedom of expression by spreading messages of intolerance that do not meet the threshold of incitement to discrimination or violence according to article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but that do merit condemnation (see A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 20). This includes speech that is not a direct call for action but establishes the ideological basis for violent action. These States have sought to adopt new legislation to criminalize “extremist” speech that does not amount to incitement by creating offences that include “advocating” terrorism, the direct or indirect “inducement”, “encouragement” or “glorification” of terrorism, or lending material support to terrorism. Others have converted previ ously civil offences into criminal ones (see A/HRC/31/65). What these new offences have in common are their propensity to deem criminal liability on the basis of the content of a person’s speech, rather than the speaker’s intentions or contextual assessments of the likelihood or occurrence of violence. The Human Rights Committee has highlighted that offences of “praising”, “glorifying” or “justifying” terrorism must be __________________ 21 22 23 24 14/22 See Joelle Fiss, “Anti-blasphemy offensives in the digital age: when hardliners take over”, analysis paper, No. 25 (Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution, 2016). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “UN experts urge immediate release of detained Mauritanian blogger”, 8 May 2018. Available at www.ohchr.org/ en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23050&LangID=E. See OHCHR, “SAU 10/2015”. Available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/ DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=21775. Department of State, United States of America, “2008 Human rights report: Iran”, 25 February 2009. Available at www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119115.htm. 18-14697