UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues [DRAFT FOR GLOBAL CONSULTATION] the potential harm to marginalised and vulnerable groups, who in most cases are minorities as understood under international law. As such, the types of minorities that should be included in this distinct category of hate speech can be ‘ethnic’, ‘racial’, ‘national’, ‘religious’, ‘linguistic’. This should also be a non-exhaustive list and should have the principled criteria of any risk of group-based violence on the basis of group identity. Therefore, indigenous peoples should also be included.23 2. SMCs should not create overly broad and ill-defined ‘public interest’ exemptions which give them wide and opaque discretion to permit hate speech in violation of their content policies. Commentary Such a discretionary tool is sometimes referred to as the ‘newsworthiness’ or ‘public interest’ exemption and has been contested especially when applied to political actors and political leaders. It is justified on the basis of wider scope of freedom of expression for politicians given their elected and representative role or when it is necessary to make the public aware of negative statements given the status of the person and its perceived democratic importance. Firstly, under the right to freedom of expression, certain categories of speakers have a broader scope of freedom of expression, notably academics, politicians, journalists, or judges.24 At the same time public interest is the basis of permissible limitations to freedom of expression25 and the prohibition of incitement to hatred, hostility and violence26 with the aim of protection of minorities27. Therefore, both public interests must be balanced: the wider scope of freedom of expression against the harm caused or posed to a protected group or minority. Secondly, the wider freedom of expression for these specific groups is derived from their special role and status in the functioning of democratic societies. Hence, the extra leeway given must be related to the performance of this special function and cannot be contrary to a democratic society or aimed at the destruction of the rights of others.28 While such political or other actors may be able to raise and debate controversial topics while fulfilling their role, they would not be able to on the ‘street’ or other public or private spaces.29 Thirdly, the status, reach and influence that comes with these special categories of individuals can also lead to an increased likelihood of inciting hatred, hostility and violence.30 As such, the application of a ‘public interest’ exemption should be made less likely. At present, the legal certainty of these discretionary exemptions is dire and worse than the definitions of hate speech. To have resort to a discretion so ill-defined and broad, SMCs risk rendering their content policies arbitrary and devoid of consistency and predictability. Having such a veto even for violating hate speech content would also open allegations of commercial consideration interfering in determining and preventing harm in particular relating to hate speech. Transparent operation and rationales individuals from groups or populations that may be at heightened risk of becoming vulnerable or marginalized, and with due regard to the different risks that may be faced by women and men” 23 UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. 24 ICCPR, Art. 19, General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 25 ICCPR, Art. 19(3). 26 ICCPR, Art. 20. 27 ICCPR Art. 27 and UN Declaration on Minorities. 28 ICCPR, Art. 19(3) and ICCPR, Art. 17. 29 Jersdilk v. Denmark, Application no. 15890/89, ECHR, 23 September 1994. 30 Rabat Plan of Action, 6 part test. 8